A/46/PV.32 General Assembly

Thursday, Oct. 17, 1991 — Session 46, Meeting 32 — New York — UN Document ↗ — OCR ✓ — ⓘ 7 unattributed speechs
▶ This meeting at a glance
7
Speeches
0
Countries
1
Resolution
Resolution: A/RES/46/9
Topics
Voting and ballot procedures Security Council deliberations UN procedural rules Latin American economic relations Arab political groupings Global economic relations

141.  Observer Status for the Caribbean Cohmjnity in the Geweral Assembly (A/46/L-7)

The President on behalf of sponsors unattributed [Arabic] #13833
I call on the representative of Barbados to introduce the draft resolution in document A/46/L.?. Mr. MAYCOCK (Barbados): I have the honour, on behalf of the sponsors, to introduce the draft resolution in document A/46/L.7, entitled "Observer status for the Caribbean Community in the General Assembly". I also have the honour to announce that, in addition to the 71 countries listed in that document, the following countries have become sponsors: Austria, Burundi, Denmark, France, Hungary, Xsrael. Italy, the Maldives, the Republic of Korea, Sao Tome and Principe, and Solomon Islands. The establishment of the Caribh-r:? Community (CARICOM), following the signing of the Treaty of Chaguaramas on 4 July 1973, marked a significant advance in realizing the iastinctive aspiration to Unity that has always been a distinguishing hallmark of West Indian peoples. Two mutually reinforcing factors have fuelled the drive of the people of the West Indies to make common cause in the world. One of these has been our strong sense of mutual belonging. deriving from common social, cultural and political values, our shared historical experience and the similarity of the institutions that govern our lives. The second is the objective implication of the inexorable fact of the small scale of oxr indivitiual societies, particularly in the context of the turbulent and difficult world in which we must survive. It was the combination cf these two factors that defined the membership, at least in its initial phase, of CARICOM, a membership that comprises the (Mr.) 13 oounttior and territorior of Antigua sad Barbuda, the Bahamaa, Bells., the Comoawealtb of Dominica, Openada, the Republic of Guyana, Jamaica, Moateerrat, Saiat Ritts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saiat Viaceat aad the Greaadiaes, the Republic of Trinidad sad Tobago, and my own country Batbadoe, all of which are members of this Orgaaioatioa , with the exception of bhu dependency of Moatserrat. These countries have beea impelled to come Lb*sther both by tbe seed to combine their separate and individual limited capacities into a stronger unified whole and by the unifying force of their shared social and cultural affinity. The advent of the Community, of course, represents the most receat development ia the efforts made over many decades to give institutional form and content to this enduring quest for West Indian unity. One of tho precursors of CARICOM was the West Indian Federation, which was established in 1958 and dissolved in 1961. The Federal experiment represented a holistic and comprehensive concept of regional unity that was based on political integration. It was followed by a series of annual meetings of Heads of Government of the Commonwealth Caribbean, which served the purpose of securing some important gains previously made, as vell as laying the foundation for future advances. The launching of the Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA) in 1968 and the deepening of CARIFTA into the Caribbean Community in 1973 emerged from this foundation. The closing of the Federal chapter in the history of the West Indian regional movement led, not surprisingly, to West Indian cooperation and integration efforts in succeeding years being focused essentially on functional and economic matters. (Mr. Mavcock. Barbado@ witbin this context, the States members of the Caribbean Community (CABICOM) have been working together through their integration organs and mechanisms - such as the CARICOM Conference of Beads of Government, the Common Market Council and the various sectoral ministerial bodies - to achieve a range of clear objectives for the benefit of their peoples. These concrete goals are being pursued within the framework of the three pillars on which the Caribbean Community is firmly anchored - economic cooperation through the Caribbean Common Market: the coordination of foreign policy between the independent member States: end the promotion of functional cooperation through the efficient operation of certain common services, and the promotion of greater understanding between the peoples of the Community. In the areas of trade and economic cooperation, the effcrt to create an enlarged common economic space for the member States is being maintained, with a view to providing a wider field for commercial interaction and exchange. To this end. sustained efforts are under way to forge a common external tariff within CABICOM: ta facilitate the free m5vement of capital, including cross-trading in stocks on individual exchanges; to promote the free movement of persons; to establish free trade in services: to ensure the right of establishmentt to advance cooperation in monetary matters; and to secure the unrestricted free movement of goods within the Community. Arrangements for joint management of external trade and economic relations of the member States also command an important place in the development of the CARICOM integration arrangements in the economic field. With regard ta foreign policy, the CARICOM member States have achieved a high degree of coordination in the management of their external political relations. thereby contributing to the positive resolution of political issues in the region and in the world at large. In the area 6f functional cooperation, common progrrumzsp. arxi measures have been, and are being, pursued for the purpose of advancing the Common interests of the member States in sea and air transportation, in education and human-resources development. in health, in environmental matters, in the integration of women in development, in labour aa industrial relations, in communication arid information, in meteorology and science and technology, and in cultural matters. The contemporary situation in the West Indies is marked by heightened consciousness of the importance of integration as ao instrument for promoting the collective social and economic development of the West InrIian paople. Fuelled by this consciousness , a veritable ferment of evaluation ana analysis is proceeding within the Caribbean Community in a far-reaching etercise to define the parameter5 and the instruments for concerted action and for ehared ehaucement of capacity as we advance into the decade of the 1990s and into the twenty-first century. In this, the West Indian people are very conscious that the future demands creative linkages with their neighbours in the rest of the Caribbean and in Latin America, and already this is finding expression in the observer status that CARICOM has granted to a number of Caribbean and Latin American countries. The West Indian people are also conscious that the future demands that they be effectively linked, individually and collectively through their Community, to the important transformation processes taking place in the vorld and to the centres of international action where these processes are goaerated and mediated. It is in this context that the admission of the Caribbean Community as an Observer in this body would be of immense value to the joint integration arrangements of the countries comprising CARICOM. It would be one more outstanding act hy the United Nations to facilitate the efforts exerted by small Stntee to mske their way in a complex world. The sponsor-R are p:hased to present draft resolution A1461L.7 for the consideration of Member States, and express the wish that it will receive the Assembly’s unanimous support. The (interpretation from Arabic): I wish to announce that Angola and Zimbabwe have joined the sponsors oE draft resclution A1461L.7. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution in document A/46/L.7. May 1 take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt this draft resolution? erpm was @o~~&gd (resolution 46i8).
Vote: A/RES/46/9 Recorded Vote
✓ 115   ✗ 1   34 abs.
Show country votes
✗ No (1)
✓ Yes (115)
The President unattributed [Arabic] #13837
The Assembly has concluded its consideration 01 aqenda item 141.

26.  QUESTION OF THE COMORIAN ISLAND OF NAYOTTE: (a) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/46/560) (b) DRAFT RESOLUTION A/46/L.9 The PRESIDJJ'J (interpretation from Arabic): I call on the Secretary of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Federal Islamic Republic of Comoros, Mr. Said Hassane Said Hachim, who will introduce the draft resolution in document A1461L.9. nrLOVmW (Comoro61 (interpretation from trench): When I had the privilege to address the Assembly last week, I atsted how very much impressed I was that our Organiartizn had regained its vitality and its prertlge. Indeed, speaker after speaker in the goners1 debate underscored the credibility and reaorve with which our Organiration wae defmadinq the noble principles contained in our Charter. It is against this new background based on respect for law and justice, and in this new order in which the community of nations has decided unequivocally to condemn any use of force and reject any fnFt_mi., that we once again debate the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte. As we have shown every time this matter has been discussed, the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte is the product of injustice and the flagrant violation of international law as well as French national law. Indeed. in addition to the fact that this problem contravensa the fundamental inviolability of borders inherited from colonisation, it also violates the sacrosanct rule on the indivisibility of overseas territories and colonial entities - and yet this is included in the French Constitution. That is all the more so, given that successive French Governments have all stressed the need to respect the territorial unity of our country. Thus, all laws and administrative provisions adopted 3uri;lg the colonial period very clearly sanctioned the unity of the Comorian archipelago. It was therefore perfectly logical that the France-Comorian Agreements of 1973 should have provided for the self-determination referendum for the Comoros to be carried out on a comprehensive basis, thus respecting the territorial unity of the archipr ago. blorBOVW* that is why the Frend Sectetary of Stats for Overseas Departments an& Territories said on 26 August 1974 in the French Hationrl Assembly. in reference to the aforementioned referendum, that the French Goverzmemt bed opted for a global consultation for the fellowinq three reasons: "The first is a legal reason, since under the terms of international law a territory maintains the borders it had as a colony. **Secondly, having a multiplicity of statutes for the different islands of the archipelago would be inconceivable. Thirdly, it is not France’s mission to pit the Comorians against oae another. " And he made it clear that "France refuses to divide the Comoros, which have the same population, the same Islamic religion, the same economic interests." Tha Freacb Minister could have added: *'the same language, the 8m culturs and blood ties woven over the centuries." Therefore, the Comorians were dismayed and amazed to learn that, contrary to these commitments aa in flagrant violation of legality, the Prench Parliament. on 3 July 1975, had adopted a law - the Comorians described it as an "iniquitous" law - under which, contrary to what haa been agreed, the results of the self-determination referendum would be considered not on a global basis but island by island. It was therefore quite natural for the Socialist Deputies, scandalized by the French Government's about turn, to decide to place the matter before the French Constitutional Council, with a view to having the law declared unconstitutional. (#r.-) tar the sake of clarity, and to enable the Aessmbly to appreciate all the elements of this came, I crave mernberr’ indulgence a8 I cite oome extracts from the letter by which the Preach Constitutional Council was aeired of the matter. The letter, on the letterhead of the Prench National harembly, wan dated 13 December 1975 and was addressed by the group of Socialist Deputies to the President and members of the Constitutional Council. It read, in part: “In coaformity with the provision8 of article 61 cf the Constitution, we have the honour to refer to the Constitutional Council the law relating to the results of the self-determination referendum in the Comoro8 Islands. “Ho believe that this law is contrary to the Constitution for the following reasons 8 Since the time when the islands of Grande-Comore, Anjouan and Mohili became a French protectorate, they have been joined toqether with the island of Mayotte as a single territory.” The first legislation on ,his subject was the decree of 9 September 1889. Since that -3ate. the political and administrative unity of the Comoro archipelago has never been called into question by any law, despite the multitude of legal texts that have een adopted with regard to the Comoro5 : the law of 9 May 1946, the law of 17 April 1953, the decree of 22 July 1957, the law of 22 December 1961, and the law of 3 January 1968. Whenever the legislators or the regulatory authorities have intervened, they have regarded the Comoro archipelago as constituting a single territory. It can even be held that the legislature took a clear decision on this matter by adopting the law of 9 May 1946. Indeed, that law was based on one proposed by an elected offi *al of the Comoros, who staeed the following in his exposition of the considerations pror-pting the law: ( LrlemL-.timm 1 “It is the Islamic religion which. reinforced by a single dialect, Swahili, gives the archipelago it8 atrong unity." I point out for the Assembly's information that this elected official was none other than the late, lamented Said Mohamed Cheik. the first Prerident of the Comoro Council of Government. Before continuing to quote from this letter, I vould recall that in the 1974 self-determination referendum 95 per cent of the Comorian people voted in favour of the independence of the archipelago. As we have already indicated, the law of 3 July 1975 not only called into question tha contents of the Agreements between France and the Comoros, but nerved as a pretext for the French Government to recognise the sovereignty of the new Comorian State over only three of the four islands which have always made up the territory of the Comoros. That is why the Socialist Deputies at that time, in placing the matter before the French Constitutional Council, pointed out that "Although, for the first time since 1809, one island had been amputated from the territory af the Comoro archipelago, France did not oppose the creation of the new CororiJn State, which has been recognized by many foreign Powers and hnz recently been admhtted to the United Nations without any op-osition on the part of France. “But international public cplnion does not. seem to have accepted France's change of doctrine, since for most foreign States the new Comorian State is the successor to the former French Comoro archipelago, constituted in 1889, an3 never called into question by Fran?:? since that date." Thos;* are the factr which we wished to htfng before the Assembly no that, in all objectivity, members could asses8 all the elements of this painful problem. Since that time, we have iieeded reconvnendat?uw of the United Nations arrd all other international organisations and have never mires8 a:n opportunity to raise the question of Mayotte with the French side, on each occasion stating that we are prepared to examine any specific proposal that could help us emerye from this painful impasse. In June 1990, during President Fran9ois Mitterrand’s visit to the Comoros, the Comorian Head of State, Mr. Said Mohamed Djohar, reiterated to his French counterpart, in the framework of the relations of confidence between our two countries, that a final solution to the problem of Mayotte must be found urgently. President Frangois Mitterrand, who has known our country well for many years and is sensitive to our concerns, once again personally confirmed France’s determination to work in the interests of both parties. This is what he said in June 1990: “We ah&l1 be speaking about this, but T believe that we must immediately take the steps that will make possible c.ntinuous coamur.icatioils and exchanges between the islz,lds: Mayotte and the others, the others and Mayotte. “Let t.here be no more barriers, theoretical but none the less real, between Comorians - and you are all Comorians: they and you yourselves, "And let France help you regain your very ancient solidarity. Thre is a multitude of for~v,s of unity, believe me, and we shall seek them out.“ (kka-f.i&&ha. CQ.lllQrQR) As mambara can imagine, that rtatemoat raicrsd great hopes amonq us and among other8 eo wall. For out part, we remain open to any proposal that might lead to a peaceful rettlement of the problem of Hayotte through the simple application of international law. The climate of confidence and unfleratanding that has always chatactetlaed relations between our country and France encourages ua even today in persisting in that position. In COnC1Uliorl, once again we call for the good offices of our Otganization, whose essential task ia to encourage p’aeu and understanding among peoples and nations, to help ua in finding the most appropriate means of giving new impetus, decisive impetus this time, to the solving of the problem of Mayotts. Allow me, finally, to express the deep appreciation of the Government of the Comoro8 to our Organization for the conscientious attention it has always paid to the question of Mayotte. The draft resolution before the Assembly in connection with out present debate emphlsizes the need to accelerate the process of negotiations between the Governments of France and the Comoros with a view to ensuring the prompt return of the island of Mayotte to the Comoros entity. We sincerely hope that it will be adopted. )I[. D&&Q! REWAK4 (Gabon) (interpretation from French): Having been on the agenda of the General Assembly since 1976, the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte is well known to the Members of our Organization. It has to da. essentially, with respect for the territorial integrity of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros. It is regrettable that a satisfactory solution to this problem has not yet been found, despite numerous resolutions adopted by the United Nations on the quartion an8 the l ctivittor of the Ad Hoc Committee of Seven of the Organisation of Mfr. Ilnity (OAU), which is prerided over by b-y country. This Comnittes, compored of Algeria, Cameroon, the Comoros, Madagascar, Mozambique, Senegal and Gabon, has been entrusted ainco 1076, under the aegis of the OAU Secretary-General, with the study end implementafion of any strategy and any measure that would facilitate P rpeedy solution to the problem of the Comorian island of Hayotte. Last year the Assembly reaffirmed the sovereignty of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoro8 over the Comorian island of Mayotte. That this island should remain outside of the Comoro6 entity - something that taanot be justified either by geography or history - is contrary to law becaure it runs counter to the will of the Comorian people. Indeed, the result of the referendum on aelf-determination, held in the Comoros ir December 1974 by the administering Power, France, clearly and massively showed the unequivocal vi11 of the overwhelming majority of the populations that took part in the referendum to set up an independent, unitary State to replace the former colonial clntity. At a time when great changes are taking place in the world, Gabon, as Chairman of the OAU Ad Hoc Committee on the Comorian island of Mayotte, would like to address an appeal to the French Government to speed up the negotiation process with the Comorian Government in order speedily to achieve the return of the Comorian island of Mayotte to the Comoros entity. With a viev to attaining this objective, I should like, on behalf of the OAU Ad Hoc Committee on this question, to request the General Assembly to vote massively in favour of the draft resolution just introduced by the Comorian Foreign Minister. &-cJMg;i?J&lg& (Prance) (interpretation from French)r Once again France ten only express its regret t.hat the General Assembly should have placed on ita agenda an item relating to the island of Mayotte. We shall I-ave t.o vote against the draft resolution, especially because of operative part 1. However. my delegation has listened with great attention to the speakers on this matter, especially the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros. It appears that everybody wishes that a just and lasting solution be found. This is indeed the position of Prance. We are engaged in the active search fol a satisfactory solution of the problem of Mayotte. In this spirit, France, through the President of the Republic, has declared itself willing to seek conditions for a solution to the problem of Mayotte, subject to the requirements of its own national law and those of international law. The climate of trust established between the Federal Republic of the Comoros ar.d the French Government makes it possible to continue with a constructive dialogue. This dialogue is based on the close relations between our two countries, as evidenced recently by the visit to France of the President of the Republic, Mr. Said Mohamed Djohar, in May 1991. We are convincecl that such a dialogue, pursued with the constant desire to ensure conciliation, trust and openness, will, in spite or difficulties, make possible a common search by all parties concerned for an acceptable solution. France, for its part, will spare no effort in that direction. ‘I’hePRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic): The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution contained in document A/46/L.9. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda. Argentina, Australia, %hmas. Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus. Belize. Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam. Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica,. C6te d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, ~1 Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland. Gabon. Gambia. Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana. Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho. Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi. Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia. Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand. Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan. Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia. Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire. Zambia, Zimbabwe Aaainst: France Abstaining: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria. Canada, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominica, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America The draft resolution was adonted bv 115 votes to 1. with 34 abstentions (resolution 46/g).*

The President unattributed [Arabic] #13839
That concludes our consideration of agenda item 28. * Subsequently the delegations of Bangladesh and Fiji advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour, and the delegation of Poland that it had intended to abstain. AGENDA ITSJ4 15 SLlSCIiORS TO PILL VACARCIRS 1M PRIWCIPAL ORGANS (a) RLECTIOR O? tlWB NOR-PBRMARSRT tG!MRERS OF THE SLCURITT COURCIL mPB1SfDtmr The General &ssembly will now proceed to the election of five non-permanent member8 of ths Security Council to replace those members whose term of officm expires on 31 December 1991. The five outgoing member6 are the following: C&e d’Ivoire. Cuba, Romania, Yemen and Zaire. There five States cannot be re-elected, end therefore their name8 rhould not appear on the ballot papers. Apart from the fivm permanent members, the Security Council will include in 1992 the followin Staten; Austria, 8019ium, Ecuador, India and Zimbabwe. The name8 of those States, therefore, should not appear on the ballot papers. Of the five non-permanent members that will remain in office in 1992, two are from Africa and Asia, one is from Latin America and tr.9 Caribbean and two are from the Western European and other States. Consequently, pursuant to paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 1991 A (XVIII) of 17 December 1963, the five non-permanent members should be elected according to the following pattern: three from Africa and Asia, one from Eastern Europe. and one from Latin America and the Caribbean. This pattern is reflected in a single ballot paper. In accordance with the established practice, there is an understanding to the effect that of the three States to be elected from Africa and Asia two should be from Africa and one from Asia. I should like to inform the Assembly that the number of candidates, not exceeding the number of seats to be filled, receiving the greatest number of votes and a two-thirds majority of those present and voting will be declared elected. In the case of a tie vote for a remaining seat, there will be a ressricted ballot limited to those candidates that have obtained an equal number of votes. May I take it that the General Assembly agrees to that procedure? fts so decided. The PRESIDERT: In accordance with rule 92 of the rules of procedure, the election shall be held by secret ballot, and there shall be no nominations. I shall now call on those members who wish to speak before we proceed to the election. Mr. FLORES RRRMDDRZ (Honduras) (interpretation from Spanish): In my capacity as Chairman of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, I wish to confirm that the Group has endorsed Venezuela for the seat in the Security Council which falls to our region for the period 1992 and 1993. Mr. GOSHU (Ethiopia): On behalf of the African Group, I should like to confirm that Cape Verde and Morocco are Africa's only candidates to (Mr. Goshu. Ethioaip) membership of the Security Council that are unanimously supported and endorsed by our Group. Mr, UhThNQ (Japan): In my capacity as Chairman of the Asian Group, I should like to state that the Asian Group has endorsed the candidacy of Japan for a seat on the Security Council. Mr. PQDTSEROB (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): As Chairman of the Eastern European Group, the Soviet delegation would like to state that this regional group supports the candidacy of Hungary.
The President on behalf of their respective regional groups unattributed #13840
In accordance with the rules of procedure, we shall now proceed to the election by secret ballot. taking into account the statements made by the representatives of Honduras, Ethiopia, Japan and the Soviet Union, on behalf of their respective regional groups. Ballot papers are now being distributed. May I request representatives to use only those ballot papers that have been distributed and to write on them the names of the five Member States for which they wish to vote. As I have indicated, the ballot papers should not include the names of the five permament members, the five outgoing non-permanent members. or the five non-permanent members that will remain in office in 1992. Votes for more States than the number of seats allocated to each region will be declared invalid and votes for States outside the relevant region will not be counted. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Corneio (Chile), Mr. Christiansen (Denmark), Mr. Nasser (Eavot), Mr. Ponikiewski (Poland) and Miss Arouillas (Philiooines) acted as tellers. A vote was taken bv secret ballot. The meetinq was suspended at 11.10 a.m. and resumed at 11.45 aem.
The President unattributed #13841
The result of the voting for the election of the five non-permanent members of the Security Council is as follows: Number of ballot oauers: 161 Number of invalid ballots: 0 Number of valid ballots: 161 Abstentions: 0 Number of members votinq: 161 Required two-thirds maiority: 108 Number of votes obtained: Cape Verde 158 Japan 158 Venezuela 154 Hungary 149 Morocco 148 Nigeria 2 Argentina 1 Honduras 1 Tunisia 1 Yugoslavia 1 Havinq obtained the reauired two-thirds majority, Cape Verde. Hunqary, Janan. Morocco and Venezuela were elected non-permanent members of the Security Council for a two-year term beainnincr on 1 January 1992.
The President unattributed #13842
I congratulate the States that have been elected non-permanent members of the Security Council and wish them good luck. I should also like to thank the tellers for their assistance in this election, (The President) The Assembly has concluded its consideration of agenda item 15 (a). TENTATIVE PROGRAHMR OF WORK
The President unattributed #13843
I should like to inform members that agenda item 142, Necessity of ending the econoinic, commercial ma financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba, will be considered in the plenary Assembly on Monday, 4 November, as the first item in the morning. The list of speakers for this item is now open. The meetina rose at 11.50 a.m.
▶ Cite this page

UN Project. “A/46/PV.32.” UN Project, https://un-project.org/meeting/A-46-PV-32/. Accessed .