A/41/PV.98 General Assembly

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Second Committee. It was so decided. (Mr. Gou~ima, Rapporteur, Second committee) .. '';' The PRESIDENT: statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding the various recommendations of the Second Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind meJrbers that in paragraph 7 of its decision 34/401 the General Assembly decided that when the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Comittee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either in the Comittee or in plenary meeting unless that delegationls vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Comittee. May I also remind members that, in accordance with decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. We turn first to the report of the second Committee on agenda item 79, "DeVelopment and international ecmomic co-operation", contained in Part I of document A/41/857. May I take it tha.t General Assembly wishes to take note of this report? It was so decided.

I now invite members to turn their attention to the report of the secmd Committee on agenda item 79 (A) concerning trade and developnent (document A/41/857/Add.l). I shall now call on those .representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting. Mr. WALTERS (united States of America); The United States did not participate in the vote on draft resolution II on our trade enbargo against Nicaragua when it was considered in the second Committee. We took this step in order to express in the most graPlic terms possible our displeasure wi th the procedures used by the sponsor s to deny the United Sta~s the right to have a fair hearing on natters we considered vital to a full and balanced discussion on this issue. (The Pres ident) we will be voting against this draft resolution now in the plenary Assellbly to put on record our mjections to the substance of the draft resalution. This drmft resolution is a direct attack on the oaited states. we do not accept its substance and most strenuously object to the way in whim it ignoces the reaSalS why t.ile tllited states decided to ;.nvoke a trade emargo against NLcaragua•. By ignoring Nicaragua's violations of human rights and civil l1bertil!9, and refusing to consider Nicaragua's interference in the inte:nal affairs of neighbouring States, this draft resolutia), cannot in any way be considered a full and fair discussial of the issues involved. *en so many nations - so many nations - which advocate trade embargos in this very forum against other nations that engage in similar practices, it is incalceivable that delegations would consider them irrelevant to our Nicaraguan embargo. Are we really supposed to provide the monies through trade to finance Nicaragua's mass ive purchases of lethal Soviet weapons? Draft resolution 11 represents \.he very worst tendencies in the United Nations. It is hypocritical. Nicaragua mintains a trade emargo as an instrument of its current political policy. SO do the co-sponscxs, Algeria and Democratic Yemen. Other co-sponsCX's actively adlTocate them. That these countries then seek to condemn the united Stabas declsim to invoke a trade embargo against Nicaragua is the ultimate in hypocrisy. It turns the WOl'ld upide down. In this case, the prosecutor is also guilty. The draft resolution reflects a double standard. Trade eDbargos are common in this wcxld. If the Uli ted States is singled out for special criticism, While the united Nations remains mute on similar measures taken by other countries, we must conclude that our country is being judged by a different set of guidelines. To vote for this draft resolution is to accept tacitly this double standard. This dan:ages the credibility of the thited Nations and a'lly contributes to further erosion of support for the institution. Finally, the procedures used in (Nr. walters, united States} the 5ecCl'ld Committee en this draft resolution were unfair. Nten the Committee allCNed itself to be manipulated by the co-sponsors in order to deny us the right to be heard and to have our views heard, it became an accessory to this naked abuse of the ideals of this body. For all these reaSalS, my delegation will vote against this draft resolutial, and we would urge all other countries which are interested in maintaining the credibility and ideals of this insti tuUon tn join us in opposing draft resolution 11. Mr. FIEID (United Kingdom) ~ Before action is taken on draft resolution II on the trade emargo against Nicaragua, I should like to make the following statement on behalf of the European Community and its 12 member States. we shall not oppose this draft resolution. However, we deeply regret the procedures followed in the second Committee before the adoptiCXl of this draft resolution which led the thit.ed states to decide that there was no point in pcessing its attempts to have its amendments considered by the COlllTlittee. We believe it is the right of any Meuber State of the thited Nations to have its proposals or amendments considered CXl their merits. I should add that the Community was disappointed that we were not able to take action on the United States proposal that. this draft resoiution should be dealt' with under item 42, "The situation in Central America-. FUr thermore, there are numerous aspects to t.he complex situation in Central America, as emerged in the debate in the plenary meeting under item 42. Many of the united states proposed amendments to the peesent draft resolutiCXl are relevant in this regard. 'In this sense, too, the second Committee ought to have been afforded the opportunity to consider these amendments. (Mr. walt.ers, United States) we have made clear our desire to contribute to the establishment of peace and to the econ,om!.c development of CenUal A1fterica. At San Jese in septenDer 1984 and at tJ.lxeDDourg in 1985, the '!Welve established a political dialogue vith the countries of Central America to underline their support for the Ccntadcca process. we mall meet again in February 1987 in Guatemala City. The FAJropean COIIIluni~l and its me.,er Statea have also signed a co-operation agreement vi th these coWltdes. It is our belief that such lin~s will help these countries to overcome the problems which they face. The PRPSmENT: The Assemly will now take a decision on the seven draft resolutions recolll'llended by the second COI1II\ittee in paragraph 68 of its report (A/41/8S7/Add.l). Draft resolution I concerns specific measures in favour of island developing countries. The secCl'ld Committee recommends to the General Assellbly the adoption of this draft resolution. May I take it ttrlat the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution I vas adopted (resolution 4]/163). Th~ PRPSIDENT: Wa turn now to draft resolution Il, enti tled "Trade ellt»argo against Nicaragua". A recorded vote has been requested. (Kr ~ Field, united Kingdoll) A recorded vote was taken. In favour; Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, BOlivia, BOtswana, Brazil, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelcxussian SOviet SOcialist Republic, Camerooo, Cape Verde, China, Colorrbia, Coogo, Cuba, Cyprus, CzechoslOl7akia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, German Denocratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic 'Aep:blic of), Iraq, Ireland, Kenya, Kuwait., Lao People's Derrocratic lepublic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahir iya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, . Malta, Maxico, Mongolia, Mozanbique, New Zealand, Nicaragua,. Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama-, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, ROmania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Spain, SUdan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukrainian SOI7iet 9ldalist Republic, Ulion of SO'1iet Socialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, YU~(,slavia, Zanbia Against; Israel, united States of America Absta in ing ~ Batu'ain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Central Afr ican Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cost: Rica, Cote d' Ivoire, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Garrbia, Germany, Federal Republic of, QJatellU!la, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lebanoo, Liberia, '~xerrbourg, Malawi, Mauritius, Nepal, Netherlands, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Portugal, Saint ~cia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, SOmalia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, ~go, Tunisia, Turkey, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, zaire Draft resolution 11 was adopted by 83 votes to 2, with 44 abstentions (resolution 41/164). * *SUbsequently, the delegations of Comeras, QJatemala, Haiti, Pakistan, Vanuatu and Zimabwe advised the secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour~ the delegations of Antigua and Barbuda, Chile, Equatorial Guine'8, Gabon, Grenada, Niger, saint C~ristopher and Nevis and saint Vincent and the Grenadines had intended to abstain. The PRESlDENT: Draft resolution III is enti tled -Economic measures as a means of political and ecooanic coercion aqainst developing countries·. A recocded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Alger ia, Mgola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas c Bahrain~ Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, BoliVia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, l'iurma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape ·"erde~ Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colonbia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, (¥prus, CzechoslOVakia, Democratic Kampuchaa, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, German Demcratic Republic, Gha."la, G1atemala, (binea, Guinea-Bissau, Glyana, Haiti, Hatduras, HunglUy, India, Indooesia, Iran (I13lamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexicx>, Mongolia, Moroccx>, MozaDbique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Qnan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, ?hilippines, Poland, Qatar, ROmania, Rwanda, saint IAJcia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, senegal, Sierra Leooe, Singapore, SOmalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sur iname, Swaziland, syr lan Arab Republic, Thailand, To9o, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, uganda, Ukrainian Soviet SOcialist Republic, Union of Soviet SOcialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, mited Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zamia Against: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Ulxemourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nocway, Pot:tugal, Spain, Sweden, united Kingdom of Great: BritaIn and N('lrthern Ireland, united States of America AbBta ining: Ganilia, Greece, 'rur key Draft resolution tII was adopted by 115 votes to 23, with 3 abstentions (r esolution 41/ 16 S~ •* *Subsequently, the delegations of Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Jordan, Pakistan, saint Christopher and Nevis and Zinbabwe advised the secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour; the delegation of Spain had intended to abstain. The PRPSIDENT: Draft resoluticn IV is entitled "Internatianal code of cCl'ldllct on tbetransfer of technolo~J". The second COllll1ittee reconnends that the General AsSembly adopt this draft resoluticn. May I consider that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? ~aft resolution IV.was adopted (resolution 41/166).

Draft resolution V deals with nstt lctive business ptactices~ The second Conmitt3e also recolllltends that the General Assembly adopt this draft resolution. May I ta~e it tnat the Gener al Assenbly wishn to do so? Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution (41/167).

nraft resolution VI is entitled "Conmodities". The secmd Committee recommends that the General Assenbly adopt: this draft resolution • May I take it that t;b;.) Gener al Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution VI was adopted (rosolution 41/168). ::Ohe PRESIDENT: Draft resolutiCl'l VII concerns the seventh sessim of the U\i ted Nations Cmference an Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The seco~d COllll1ittee recolllllends the adoption of dra£i:: resolution VII to the General Assenbly. May I take it that the Gener al Assemly wisnes to adopt it? Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution 41/169).

I now invite representatives to turn to the four draft decisions recommended by the secmd Corrmitt'ge in paragraph 69 of its report (A/4l/857/Add.l). Draft decision I is entitled "United Nations Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships". May I consider that the Gener~ Assembly adopts that draft decision? Draft decision I was adopted. The PRESIDEN~z Draft decision 11 relates to commodities. May I consider that the General Assembly adopts that draft decision? Draft decision 11 was adopted.

Draft decision 111 is entitled "Protectionism and structural adjustment". May I take it that the General Assembly adopts that ~raft decision? Draft decision III was adopted. (The president)

Dra~t decision IV concerns the report of the Secretary-General on the Preferential Trade Area for Eastern and SOuthern African States, ~he report of the Sec~etary-Generalon the particular problems facing Zaire with regard to transport, transit and access to foreign markets, and the report of the Trade and Development Board. May 1 take it that the General Assembly adopts that draft decision? Draft decision IV was adOPted.

. 1 shall now call on representatives who wish to explain their votes. Mr. LABERGE (canada): 1 should like to explain our vote on draft resolution 11 in document A/4l/8S7/Add.l. Prom the beginning, my nelegation has questioned the appropriateness of addressing the trade embargo agatnst Nicaragua in the Second COmmittee. The General ASsembly has pronounced itself on the ruling of the International Court of Justice, which is one aspect of a complex regional problem. We fail to see the productive or constructive contribution the Second Committee could make to the consideration given this issue by the General Assembly meeting in plenary in the context of the debate on Central America, under agenda item 42. We regret that it was impossible for this draft resolution to be considered properly in informal negotiations, as is the usual way of the Second committee. We also.regret the unnecessary fragmentation with respect to this question at the united Nations, and the resulting politicization which was introduced in our proceedings over the drait resolution. Because' of this, important aspects of the situation in Centfal America, notably regarding human rights and interference in neighbouring countries, did not receive proper attention. Tactics, procedural or otherwise, intended t~ prevent an open consideration of views are objectionable to my delegation. They not only muzzle individual delegations but prevent others from expressing themselves fully on a given issue. For instance, the Second COmmittee was not given the opportunity to vote on proposed amendments. It is for those reasons that Canada abstained in the vote on draft resolution lI. Mr. MULLER (Australia): My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution 11, on the trade embargo against Nicaragua, reflecting Australia's well known position on that question. At the same time, we should like to record here our concern at the way in which this issue was handled in the Second COmmittee. As we indicated in the Committee, we strongly believe that all delegations have the right to put resolutions before that COmmittee. It follows, therefo:e, that all delegations have the right to propose amendments to such resolutions and to have such amendments considered and acted upon by the COmmittee. Handling of the amendments proposed to the text the Assembly has just adopted was neither constructive for the work of the Committee nor based upon a recognition of the right of a delegation to be able to express its point of view and to hav~ amendments reflecting that point of view ~at to the vote. The Committee was given the opportunity to express its point of view, by a vote, on the draft resolution submitted to it in document A/C.2/4l/L.29. We believe that the same opportunity should. have been given it with regard to the amendments proposed to that text. Had those amendments, which were introduced in document A/C.2/41/L.43, been put to the vote in the Second Committee, my delegation would have abstained on the majority of them on the grounds that either they were designed to change the sense of the original draft resolution or did not accurately (Mr. Laberge, Canada) refer to general principles of international behaviour. My delegation would, however, have supported the first amendment proposed in paragraph 2 of document A!C.2/41/L.43 and the amendment propooed in paragr~ph 4 of that document, which referred to the suspension of civil liberties in Nicaragua. Mr. POSELLO (Spain) (interpretation from Spanish): My delegation voted in favour of draft resolutio'- 11, entitled "Trade embargo against Nicaragu3". My delegation regrets that through the use of procedural points the Second committee was not permitted to consider amendments to that draft resolution. Moreover, we feel that through the General Assembly's adoption by consensus of resolutions regarding the Contaaora process, under agenda item 42, there has been consideration of the overall situation in the region. Mr. PAYTON (New Zealand): I wish to speak to draft resolution 11, as just adopted by the General Assembly. My delegation joins others that have expressed concern and regret that the sponsors of draft resolution 11 felt it necessary to use procedural tactics designed to prevent consideratio~of amendments to the draft resolution by one delegation. My delegation wishes to underline the comments it has made on several occasions during consideration of this issue by the Second COmmittee. My aelegation has supported the draft resolution, but we are totally opposed to tactics which curtail the right of any delegation to have its views considered. We would appeal to the sponsors to take account of those concerns if, or when, the issue is brought before the Second COmmittee at the forty-second session.

I call on the representative of the Union of, Soviet socialist Republics on a point of order. (Mr. Muller, Australia) Mr. ZVEZDIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russi~n)1 I wish, Mr. President, to draw your attention to the fact that today a number of delegations have explained their vote on the resolution entitled -Trade embargo against Nicaragua-, although you quite rightly recalled at the outset that the right of explanation of vote can be exercised by delegations only once. If you look at paragraph 36 of the report which we have just adopted, you will see there the list of representatives who have already 'explained their vote on the dr3ft resolution. I would ask you to look at paragraph 36, where you will see that Australia, Canada and New Zealand have already spoken and explained their votes.

I thank the representative of the Soviet Union. Anyway, Norway is the last representative who has asked to speak in explanation of vote. Miss DANIELSEN (Norway): My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution II. However, I should like tl;) ':'"ice our regret over the fact that th'~ debate in the Second Committee on this issue was dominated by procedural deliberations. My delegation would have wished that the Second Committee had been able to take action on the amendments proposed by the united States. Had those amendments been put to a vote, my delegation would have been able to support some of them.

I now call on the representative of Nicaragua, who has asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply. ~. ICAZA CALLARD (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish): The representative of the United States, in his explanation of vote on the draft resolution on the trade embargo against Nicaragua, as was to be expected, launched his usual attack against my country and the other co-sponsors of the draft. Ever since last year the United States has been doing almost the impossible to prevent a decision by the Assembly on this matter, and to that end resorting to all sorts of procedural manoeuvres, inclUding the submission of a total of about 25 amendments and sub-amendments, aimed at distorting the original draft. This year the United States put into practice the same policy, first of all trying to link the item to other matters which are totally extraneous to the legal principles involved. That ridiculous linkage was attempted first of all by trying (Mr. Zvezdin, USSR) to take the item out of the Second committee, and then by submitting amendments which tried to distort the nature of the original draft. It is the united States delegation which has resorted in bad faith to procedures to prevent the expression of an opinion by this Assembly on its unjust, illegal and arbitrary policy towards Nicaragua. The trade embargo and other coereive economic measures were decreed by the united States Government in May 1985. Those measures violate not only the bilateral treaty on trade and navigation between the united States and Nicaragua, as affirmed by the International COurt of Justice, but they also violate basic principles which should govern economic relations and co-operation among States. Five months later, faced with the undeclared war with the united States, my country had to declare a state of emergency, in accordance with its sovereign rights, recognized in the International COvenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which we are ~arty, and which the united States has not even signed. To try to link the trade embargo to matters which are fully under the domestic jurisdiction of a State is totally unacceptable, but we have become used to that type of stratagem from the United States. With regard to the human rights of the heroic people of South Africa, the United States has constantly exercised the right of veto in the Security Council, thus preventing mandatory sanctions, which are the only way to eliminate the abhorrent and horrendous system of apartheid. With regard to the human rights of the Palestinian people, the United States maintains its unconditional support for the regime of Israel in all fields. With regard to the human rights of the Nicaraguan people, our ports have been mined, our oil depots have been bombed, women, children and the elderly are killed every day. Co-operative schools and hospitals are being destroyed. We have been (Mr. Icaza Gallard, Nicaragua) deprived of the freedom to trade with the United States, our most important natural trading p~rtner, thus causing losses in the millions to our economy. The draft resolution on the trade embargo against Nicaragua wnich we have just adopted is based on basic principles of international relations: first, the non-use of force in relations among States, which entails non-recourse to political, military or economic measures to obtain advantages of any kind, secondly, the principle of no~-interf~rence in the internal affairs of States, thirdly, the principle of respect for the legal order and for legally contracted international obligations. It is to those issues that we have addressed ourselves.

We have thus c()ncluded our consid1!ration of subitem (a) of agenda item 79. We now turn to the report of the Second Committee on sUbitems (c) and Cd) of agenda item 79, entitled "New and Renewable Sources of Energy· and "Development of the Energy Resources of Developing Countries", respectively, in document A/41/857/Add.3. The Assembly will first take a decision on the draft resolution contained in paragraph 8 of the report of the Second Committee. The draft resolution relates to the report of the Committee on the Development and Utilization of New and Renewable Sources of Energy. The Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of that draft resnlution. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 41/170).

I now invite representatives to turn to the draft decision recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 9 of its report, document A/41/857/Add.3. (MrM Icaza Gallard, Nicar~9ua) ~le draft deciB!on is entitled -Development of the Energy Resources of Developing Countries". The Second ~ittee t'acoIUIends 'to the General Assembly the adoption of that draft decision. May I take it thQt the General A~sembly wishes to adopt; it? The draft decisi~ was adopted. The PRESIDENTI The Assembly has concluded its consideration of subitems (c) and (d) of agenda item 79. The Assembly will now turn to the report of the Second Committee dealing with proposals not related to any particular subitem of agenda item 79, document A/41/857/Md. 4. The Assembly will now take a decision on the recommendations of the Second committee contained in paragraph 23 of its report. ~irst, we turn to draft decision I which relates to the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. A recorded vote has been requested. (The President) A reeorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Alqeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina paso, Burma, Burundi, By~lorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, COngo, COsta Rica, c&te d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Damocratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Rep~blic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Sal~ador, Equato~ial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao people's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyon Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Panama, papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao TOme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, SWaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, ~o, 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, z~mbia, Zimbabwe Against: United States of America Abstainin~: Australia, Austria, Belgium, canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Draft decision I was adopted by 129 votes to 1, with 23 abstentions. The PRESIDEN'l': Next; we turn to draft decision Il, which deals with the International COnference on Money and Finance for Development. The Second COmmittee recommends to the Assembly the adoption of that draft decision. May I take It that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft decision !I was adopted.

Draft decision III is entitled "Internaeional conference on money and finance". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain f Banglade~h, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, COmoros, COngo, COsta Rica, c6te d'Ivoi~e, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, 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 Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, France, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaininq: Austria, Finland, Israel, New zealand, Norway, Sweden Draft decision III was adopted by 129 votes to 19, with 6 abstentions.

Next, the Second Committee recommends the adoption of draft decisions IV, entitled "Mobilization of financial resources for industrial development". May I take the General Assembly wishes to adopt the draft decision? Draft decision IV wa~ adopted. The p~SInENT: The Assembly has concluded its consideration under agenda item 79 proposals not related to any particular sub-item. The Assembly will now turn to the report of the Second Committee (A/41/869) on agenda item 80, entitled "Operational activities for development". The Assembly will take a decision on the recommendations of the Second Committee in paragraphs 14 and 15 of its report. The Second COmmittee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the draft resolution in paragraph 14, entitled "Operational activities for development". that draft resolution. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 41/171).

In paragraph 15 of its report the Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption three draft decisions. Draft decision I concerns reports of the Joint Inspection unit on field representation of organizations of the United Nations system and technical co-operation among developing countries. May I take that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft decision? Draft decision I was adopted.

Draft decision 11 deals with the United Nations population Award. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft decision? Draft decision 11 was adopted. ~

Draft decision III concerns oper~tional activities for development. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt the draft decision? Draft decision III was adopted.

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 80. I now invitv the Assembly to turn its attention to the report of the Second COmmittee (A/41/859) on agenda item 81, "Training and research". The Assembly will now take decisions on the draft ~esolutions recommended to the Assembly for adoption in paragraph 21 of the report of the Second COmmittee (A/4l/859). Draft resolution I is entitled "Restructuring plan for the United Nations Institute for Training and Research". May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 41/172).

Draft resolution 11 is entitled "United Nations University". May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution 11 ~as adopted (resolution 41/173).

Draft resolution III is entitled "Unified approach to development analysis and plannin9". May I take it that the ~neral Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 41/174). !be 'RBSIDBN'1'1 Next we turn to draft resolution IV, entitled ·Universit.y for Peace". May I take it that the General Assembly wishes ~ adopt it? Draft r,e801ution..JY was adopte! (resolution 41/175). !he PRESIDENT: The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda it.em 81.

I have to announce that the Chairmen of the regional groups have informed me of the following candidatures: for five seats ftom Africa: Burundi, Gabon, Mauritania, Senegal and Zaire, for four seats from Asia: Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan and the Republic of Korea, for two seats from Eastern Europe: the Okrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of SOviet Socialist Republics, for three seats from Latin America: Brazil, Dominican Republic and Venezuela, for five seats from Western Europe and other States: the Federal RepUblic of Germany, Greece, Sweden, Switzerland and the United St~tes of America. Since the number of candidates corresponds to the number of seats to be filled in each group, I declare those candidates elected. The following countries were elected members of the Gove~ning council of the United Nations Environment Programme for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1987: Brazil, Burundi, Dominican Republic, Gabon, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Japan, Mauritania, the Republic of Korea, Senegal, Sweden, Switzerland, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America, Venezuela and Zaire.

I congratulate all the States which have been elected members. We have concluded our consideration of sub-item (a) of agefida item 17. The Assembly will now consider sub-item (b) of agenda item 17, entitled "Election of twelve members of the World Food Council B • In this connection, the Assembly has before it, the nominations of the Economic and Social Council (A/4l/449). The 12 retiring members are: Argentina, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Chile, Finland, France, Hungary, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Morocco and Pakistan. The following States have been nominated by the Economic and Social Council: three African States for three vacancies: Burundi, Rwanda and Tunisia; three Asian States for three vacancies: India, Japan and Pakistan~ three Latin American States for two vacancies: Argentina, Colombia and GuatemalaJ one Socialist State of Eastern Europe for one vacancy: HungarYJ three Western European and other States for three vacancies: France, Italy and Sweden. The number of States nominated from among the African States, the Asian States, the Socialist States of Eastern Europe and the Western European and other States is equal to the number of seats allocated to each of those groups. In accordance with paragraph 16 of General Assembly decision 34/401, I declare those States elected members of the World Food Council for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1987. Since the number of States nominated from among the Latin American States is higher than the number envisaged for this group, we shall have to proceed to an election be secret ballot. Ballot papers indicating the number of States to be elected for the Group of Latin American States are being distributed. Only the states nominated by the Economic and Social ·Council, namely, Argentina, C9lombia and Guatemala, are eligible in this ballot. I should like to stress that the names of these States cnly should be written on the ballot papers. In accordance with the existi~g practice, the States receiving the largest number of votes and not less than the majority required will be declared elected. In the case of a tie for the last seat there will be a restricted ballot limited to those States that have obtained an equal number of votes. May I take it that the General Assembly agrees to that procedure? It was so decided.

I request representatives to use only the ballot papers that are being distributed and to write the names of the States for which they wish to vote. Ballot papers containing more than two names will be declared invalid. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Buben (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), Mr. Suazo Tome (Honduras), Mr" Fyfe (New Zealand) and Mr. Malekela (United Republic of Tanzania) acted as tellers. A vote was taken by secret ballot. (The President) The meeting was-suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at 11.45 a.m.

The result of the voting is as follows: Number of ballot papers: Number of invalid ballots: Number of valid ba410ts: Abstentions: Number of Members voting: Required majority: Number of votes obtained: Argentina 126 Colombia 123 Guatemala 40

Argentina and Colombia, having obtained the required majority, are elected as members of the World Food Council. The following countries were elected members of the World Food Council for a three-year term beginning 1 January 1987: Argentina, Burundi, Colombia, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, pakistan, Rwanda, Sweden and Tunisia.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to congratulate the States which have been elected members of the World Food Council, and to thank the tellers for their assistance in this election. We have concluded consideration sub-item (b) of agenda item 17. We turn now to sub-item (c) of agenda item 17, entitled "Election of seven members of the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination". In this connection, the Assembly has before it document A/4l/450 which contains the nominations of the Economic and Social Council to fill the vacancies in the Committee which will ~ur as a result of the expiration on 31 December 1906 of the terms of office of Brazil, cameroon, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan and Liberia. The following States have been nominated by tho Economic and Social COuncil: three African States for three vacancies - Burkina Paso, C8meroon and Tunisia, five Asian States for three vacancies - China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Pakistan, and one Latin American State for one vacancy - Brazil. Mr. BOKHARI (Pakistan): By its decision 1986/150 of 22 May 1986, the Economic and Social COuncil nominated my country for election to the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination. pollowing consulations in the Asian Group, however, my delegation has decided to withdraw its candidature for one of the three Asian seats.

Therefore, we now have four Asian States for three vacancies: China, India, Indonesia and Japan. The number of States nominated from among the African Group and the Latin American Group is equal to t~, number of seats allocated to each of those Groups. In accordance with paragraph 16 of decision 34/401, the Assembly may dispense with balloting when the number of candidates nominated from among groups is equal to the number of seats allocated to each of those ~roups. May I take it that the Assemtily wishes to declare those States elected members of the Committee for programme and Co-ordination for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1987? It was so decided. (The president)

Members have heard the stateme~t of the representative of Pakistan. Since the number of States is still higher tban the number of seats allocated to this Group, we shall have to proceed to an election. Ballot papers indicating that three States are to be elected from the Group of Asian States are being distributed. In view of the withdrawal of one candidate, only four of the five States nominated by the Economic and Social Council, namely, China, India, Indonesia and Japan a~e eligible. I should like to stress that only the names of three of these States should be written on the ballot papers. In accordance with the rules of procedure, the States receiving the largest number of votes, and not less than the majority required, will be declared elected. I request representatives to use only the ballot papers that are being distributed and to write the names of the three State~ for which they wish to vote. Ballot papers containing more than three names will be declared invalid. At the invitation of the 'president, Mr. Buben (Byelorussian Soviet socialist Republic), Mt. Suazo Tome (Honduras), Mr. Fyfe (New Zealand) and Mr. Malekela (United Republic of Tanzania) acted as tellers. A vote was taken by secret ballot. The meeting was suspended at 12 noon and resumed at 12.20 p.m.

The result of the voting is as follows: Number of ballot papers: Number of invalid ballots: Number of valid ballots: Abstentions: Number of Members voting: Required majority: Number of votes obtained: China 133 Indonesia 112 Japan 96 India 95

China, Indonesia and Japan, having obtained the required majority, are elected members of the committee for Programme and Co-ordination.· The following countries were elected members of the COmmittee for programme and CO-ordination for a period of three years beginning 1 January 1987: Brazil, Burkina Paso, Cameroon, China, Indonesia, Japan and Tunisia.

I wish to congratulate the States which have been elected members of ~he Committee for Programme and Co-ordination and to thank the tellers for their assistance. This concludes our consideration of sub-item (c) of agenda item 17 and of agenda item 17 as a whole. I wish to advise members that I have been informed that the delegation of Greece had requested to explain its vote on draft resolution 11 under sub-item (a) of agenda iteme 79 of our agenda, but that its request could not be conveyed prior to the conclusion of discussion of that item. o o In view of the special circumstances, I therefore call on the representative of Greece to explain his vote at this time. Mr. PAPADATOS (Greece): Within the context of the EuropeanCommunity's statement on the draft resolution on the trade embargo against Nicaragua, and in view of the importance of the matter, the Greek del~gation would like to make the following explanation of vote. We voted in favour of that draft resolution. However, we deeply regret the procedures followed in the Second Committee before the adoption of that draft resolution which led the united States to decide that there was no point in pressing its attempts to have its amendlnents considered by the Committee. I should add that the Greek delegation did not concur in any way with procedures aimed at not taking action on the united States proposal that that draft resolution should be dealt with under agenda item 42, "Situation in Central America". The meeting rose at 12.25 p.m. (The President)