A/47/PV.84 General Assembly

Members will recall that the debate on agenda item 40 was held at the 69th plenary meeting, on 23 November. I call on the representative of India, who will introduce draft resolution Al47/L.26/Rev.l. Mr. LATHER (India): My delegation is gratified that a full debate has taken place this year on agenda item 40 - "Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security C01l'.ncil". The number of participants in the debate and the ground covered by them exceeded previous levels, and the Message came loud and clear that the time was propitious to study the question in depth. We informed the General Assembly during the debate that my delegation, along with several other like-minded countries, would introduee a draft resolution on this item for adoption at this session. Today I have the privilege and the honour to introduce that draft resolution, contained in document A/47/L.26/Rev.l. I am glad to say that the sponsors have been able to accommodate the amendment proposed in document A/47/L.30. The text of draft resolution A/47/L.26/Rev.l is the outcome of extensive discuGsions and consultations among several delegations that were of the view that the time had now come to begin the process towards equitable representation on the Security Council and an inc~ease in its membership formally, though in a modest manner, by inviting ~he views of the Member States. (Mr. Lather, India) It is natural that during this process the sponsors of this draft resolution made effor.ts to accommodate the views of the largest possible number of Member nations and thus arrive at a text which represents the consensus of the Member nations of this Organization. This d~aft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Barbados, Bhutan, Brazil, Chile, ColorrJ)ia, Cuba, Egypt, Gabon, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe and India. Under the preambu1ar paragraphs of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would recognize the increasingly crucial role of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security, and the substantial increase in the membership of the .United Nations. It would also express realization of the need to continue the process of restructuring of certain organs of the United Nations in the context of the principles, objectives and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations as well as of the call made at the Tenth Conference of the Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries at Jakarta for a review of the membership of the Security Council. Under the draft resolution' s operative paragraphs, t!le Assembly would request the Secretary-General to invite Member States to submit thei~ written comments on a possible review of the membership of the Security Council and would further request the Secretary-General to s,~mit these views in a report to the forty-eighth session uf the Ganera1 Assembly for its consideration. As I mentioned earlier, the aim of the draft resolution ia to promote an exchange of views on the subject among Member countries, for further consideration at the next session of the General Assembly. The draft resolution is before the General Assembly and I recommend it for adoption by consensus. We hope that the historic process we are initiatinq today will strengthen the United Nations and enable it to discharge its enhanced responsibilities.

May I take it that the General Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/47/L.26/Rev.l? Draft resolution A/47/L.26/Rev.l was adopted (resolution 47/62).

I call on the representative of the United States, • who wishes to explain his delegation'S position on the draft resolution just adopted. Mr. SARBANES (United States of America): The United States is pleased to support a General Assembly resolution inviting United Nations Member States to comment, not later than June 30 1993, on possible adjustments in the size and composition of the Security Council. The United States supports steps such as this one that are designed to enhance the operation of the Security Council. We look forward to making a submission on the timely SUbject of the Council's composition, on which we have made known our views in the past, and to receiving the report mandated by this resolution. The Security Council must remain fully capable of safeguarding international peace and security. Fortunately, in recent years the Security Council has made significant progress towards assuming the constructive role intended for it by its founders. It has defeated Iraqi aggression in Kuwait, confronted problems of humanitarian need in the former Yugoslavia, in Iraq and in Somalia, and~elp'~~' build democracy iJl.h~Qla, CBJIlboclia and El Sl!llvador. The United.States attl!lches greatimpoJ:'tance ttttl1e work· Qf the Security , . • c- , ~ • -" .- . ,-' ~:- " COUllcii. and would Qppose revisions to 'theUniteClNationsChl!lz;tertl1at would . . . unde:u:mine the Council'S efricacyor efficiep.cy.

We have concluded this stage Qf our consideration of agenda item 40.

The Assembly will n~w resume its consideration of agenda item 35, "The situation in the Middle East". I should like to remind representatives that the debate on this item was concluded at the 79th plenary meeting, on 4 December 1992. In connection with this item, the Assembly has before it three draft resolutions issued as 'documents A/47/L.41, Al47/L.42 and A/47/L.43. I now call on the representative of Indonesia, who will introduce the three draft ~esolutions. '\ Mr. NASIER (Indonesia): I have the honour, on behalf of the sponsors, to introduce draft resolutions A/47/L.4l, A/47/L.42 and A/47/L.43 under agenda item 35, "The situati.,p in the Middle East". I wish to note that Morocco, Pakistan and Viet Nam have joined the sponsors of draft resolutions A/47/L.41 and A/47/L.42. Furthermore, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan and Viet Nam should be included in the list of sponsors of draft resolution A/47/L.43. It has now been a quarter of a century since Israel occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories. Yet, despite the adoption of numerous resolutions by the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as intense diplomatic efforts and actions to find a political solution to the conflict, the situation in the Middle East remains volatile and poses a threat to international peace and security. The current peace process, which was initiated through the convening of the Madrid Conference in October of last yea~, gave renewed hope that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to this long-standing conflict, at the core of which is the question of Palestine, could at last be ,achieved. However, the process has lurched along and has yet to show substantive progress. Israel, the occupyiug Power, has never ceased in its policy of changing the status and demographic composition of the occupied territories by directing relentless waves of Jewish immigrants to settle on Palestinian and Arab lands. It has also refused to implement Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the "land for peace" principle. Such policies threaten to undermine the peace process and may escalate the conflict in the region and beyond. It is against this background that the sponsors have put the draft resolutions before the Assembly for their consideration. These draft resolutions reflect the significant developments that have taken place since the adoption of the same resolutions by this body last year. The texts of the draft resolutions, inter alia, reaffirm that the question of Palestine is the core of the conflict in the Middle East and that no comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region will be achieved without the full exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights, as well as the unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel from Palesti.nian and other Arab lands, including Jerusalem. Furthermore, the texts declare that Israel has failed to comply with the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. The texts also deplore the transfer by 'some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980) and their refusal to comply with the provisions of that resolution, and calls (Mr. Nasier,-Indonesia) upon those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions, in conformity with, the Charter of the United Nations. It is our hope that these resolutions, which would contribute to the achievement of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, will receive the overwhelming support of Member.States. However, the sponsors of the draft resolutions would like to recommend that the General Assembly not take any action at this stage on draft resolution A/47/L.41, but ~eserve their right to request that action be taken on it at some later point during the current session.

At the request of the sponsors, action on draft resolution A/47/L.41 is postponed to a later date to be announced. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolutions A/47/L.42 and A/471L.43. We will first take a decision on draft ~3so1ution A/47/L.42. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. Afgl1anistau, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malays~a, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan~ Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe Against: Isre,Q1, Micronesia (Federated States of), iJnited States of America Abstaining: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Arg-entina.. Australia, Austria, Bahamas, BarbadoS, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, CzechoslQvakia, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya,·Kyrgyzstan, " Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Srenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kinqdom of Great Britain and Nor~hern Ireland, Uruguay, Vene3uala Draft resolution A/47/L.42 was adopted by 72 votes to 3, with 70 abstention~ (resolution 47/63 A) •• • Subsequently the delegations of Angola~ Liberia, Mali, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Trinidad and Tobago advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.

We turn now to draft resolution A/47/L.43. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgiwn, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde~ Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic People's Republic of Koraa, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland. India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mad~gascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta. Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, S3int Lucia, Saint Vincent an~ the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Su~iname, Swaziland: Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe Against~ Israel Abstaining: Croatia, Marshal1 Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of). Togo, United States of America Draft resolution A/47/L.43 was adopted by 140 votes to 1. with 5 abstentions (resolution 47/63 B).* * Subsequently, the delegations of Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Guinea-Bissau, Lib~ria, Mali, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe and Trinidad and Tobago advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.

Before calling' onthefirfit: speaker in explanation of vote, may I remind members that, inacco.rdancewit~General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by deleg'ations from their seats. . ., Mr. TAYLOR (Canada): Canada applauds the decision of the sponsors to request to defer consideration of draft resolution A/47/L.41. This is a positive gesture which serves to build confidence among' the parties involved in the conflict in the Middle East. Canada has never accepted the legality of Israeli occupation of the Golan, and has on numerous occasions advocated that Israel should accept the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories. Much highly contentious lang'uag'e has been dropped from draft resolution A/47/L.42 on the occupied Syrian Golan, an improvement which warrants our chang'e from a neg'ative vote to an abstention. Nevertheless, we note that significant bilateral discussions are already under way between Syria and Israel. We believe that in that process lies the best prospect for peace between the parties. We would therefore have preferred that this draft resolution had not been broug'ht to a vote. Canada hopes that at the next General Assembly WQ ohall see further positive approaches to the situation in the Middle East. Mr. KHANDOGY (Ukraine): The delegation of Ukraine qoted in favour of draft resolution A/47/L.43 in view of our long'-standing' support of the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council conce~ning Jerusalem. However, we were obliged to abstain on draft resolution A/47/L.42 concerning' the Syrian Golan since this issue is the subject of negotiations within the framework of th~ Madrid peace process. (Mr. Khandogy, Ukraine) This abstention notwithstanding', Ukraine ~cmtinueu to support the demand that Is~ael withdraw from the occupied Syrian Golan in implementation of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Mr. FIFE (Norway): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway. The Nordic countries regret that they had to abstain on the draft resolution on the Golan. While we recognize the positive changes in the text as compared with the corresponding resolution adopted during the forty-fifth session of the General Assembly, it unduly prejudges the outcome of the peace process that is currently under way. Moreover, we should like to reiterate that the Nordic countries remain committed to Security Council resolu~ions 242 (1967) and 497 (1981). Mr. ROBINSON (United States of America): My Government's views are well known on resolutions that speak conclusively to the issue under direct negotiation between parties of the region. This Assembly should support the process of these negotiations rather than prejudge its outcome. My Government is greatly disappointed by the adoption of draft resolution A/47/L.42 concerning the Golan Heights. A draft resolution on the matter was not voted upon last year, and we had hoped that it would not be voted upon this year. My Government voted for Security Council resolution 497 (1981) on the status of the Golan Heights. This month parties to the Madrid process are engaged in an eighth round of bilateral negotiations. Many of us are aware that the topic of the Golan Heights is among the most central issues in the framework of ongoing bilateral negotiations. As Secretary of State Baker said in Madrid last year, the United States is sensitive to the respective parties' desires for PQ8Ce, land and security. These three issues all relate to one another, and in complex ways. The parties in the region are now negotiating directly with one another on these issues. For these reasons, we believe that this resolution should not have been adopted by the General Assembly. As has been our practice in the past, the United States abstained in the voting on the draft resolution concerning Jerusalem. We are convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but that its final status should be decided through negotiations•. Many of our discussions this fall showed that the Madrid process has signalled a turning point in the Assembly's approach to Middle East issues. Old and futile tactics are rightly being discarded. We are pleased that the Assembly did not vote on one of the most unhelpful resolutions of the past; we trust that that resolution will remain in the past. Parties in the region are abandoning polemics and taking up pragmatic, creative approaches to challenging problems. We ask parties outside the region to do all in their power to support the efforts of those in the region. Mr. ABOLHASSANI-SHAHREZA (Islamic Republic of Iran): Since my delegation is fully committed to the advancement of the situation in the Middle East, we supported and voted in favour of the draft resolutions contained in docum~nts A/47/L.42 and L.43. However, my delegation, in line with its well-known position, expresses its reservations regarding those parts of the draft resolutions which implicitly or explicitly re~der recognition to the Zionist entity. Therefore, my delegation requests that its reservations be officially recorded. ! Mr. SUMI (J~pan): Japan abstained in thQ voting on draft resolution A/47/L.42, on the situation in the Middle East. 1 should like to put on record the reason for its abstention. The draft resolution is a substantial impl'ovemen~ over resolution 45/03 B adopted on this question two years ago.• Japan voted against th~ earlier resolution on the grounds that it singled out for criticism a permanent member of the Security Council and referred to Israel as a non-peace-loving Member State. Although this year's draft resolution is fr.ee of those attacks, Japan does not support its adoption at this time. Inasmuch as substantive discussions are under way on the issue of the Golan Heights, Japan believes it would have been better to await the outcome of the talks before putting draft resolution A/47/L.42 to the vote. Japan appreciated the decision of the Syrian Government last year to defer the draft resolution, and had hoped to see it deferred again this year. Lastly, Japan would like to express its appreciation to the sponsoring Arab States and to the Pal~stine Liberation Organization (PLO) for their decision to defer draft resolution A/47/L.41; we ~elieve it unnecessary for that tey.t to be voted upon at this time of ongoing peace talks. We believe that good gesture will enhance the Madrid peace process. Mr. CLIFF (United Kingdom): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Community and its member States. First, I should like to say that we welcome the decision of the sponsors to defer action on draft resoluti~n A/47/L.41. It is a contentious text, and we believe its deferral is a very positive contribution towards the Middle East peace process. (MI. Cliff, United Kingdom) The Twelve have just abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/47/L.42, on the Golan. This in no way undermines our support for Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 497 (1981), to which we remain fully committed•. Although we ~elcome the changes in the tex.t and have no major difficulties with the substance of the resol~tion, we would have preferred that it had not bee~put to the vote. We do not think it appropriate that the General Assembly should adopt a resolution which prefigures the outcome of the negotiations which are currently going on between the parties concerned. Mr. LOZINSKY (Russian Federation) (interpretation from Russian): The Russian delegation welcomes the reasonable approach taken by Arab countries in not puttinq to the vote draft resolution A/47/L.41, which repeats the content of resolution 46/82 A. At the same time, we regret that, unlike the text submitted at the forty-sixth session, this year's draft resolution A/47/L.42 was put to the vote. The. delegation of the Russian Federation, as a spol1sor of the current peace process, abstained in the voting on that draft resolution because it reflects a one-sided approach to the questions 01 substance that are now under discussion at the Arab-Israeli negotiations.

The General Assembly has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of agenda item 35. As previously announced, the Assembly is postponing action on draft resolution A/47/L.41 to a later date to be announced. AGEND.i\ ITEM 30 (continued) QUESTION OF PALESTINE (a) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE (Al47135) (b) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (Al47/7l6) (c) DRAFT RESOLUTIONS (Al471L.35, L.36, L.37/Rev.l, L.38 AND L.39)

I remind representatives that the debate on this item was conc111ded at the 77th plenary meeting, held on 2 December 1992. I call on the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, who will introduce draft resolutions A/47/L.35, L.36, L.37/Rev.l, L.38 and L.39. Mr. CISSE (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (interpretation from French): In addition to the sponsors listed on the documents before the Assembly, the following countries have become sponsors of draft resolutions A/47/L.35 and A/47/L.36: Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Ukraine and Viet Nam. (Mr, Ci"se. Chairman. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the PalestiniQn People) Morocco, Sudan and Yemtn have also become sponsors of all five draft resolutions. India and Mali have become sponsors of draft resolutions A/47/L.35, A/41/L.36, A/47/L.37/Rev.l and A/47/L.38. On behalf of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, I have the honor to introduce to the Assembly draft resolut.ions A/47/L.35, A/47/L,36, A/47/L.37/Rev.l, A/47/L.38 and A/47/L.39. The first th~ee draft resolutions, A/47/L.35, A/47/L.36 and A/47/L.37/Rev,1, are basically the same as those submitted in previous years. They are designed to enable the Committee, the Division for Palestinian Rights and the Department of Public Information to continue their programme of work authorized at the forty-sixth session, pro~!ision for which has been made in the programme budget for the bienniurn 1992-1993. In draft resolution A/47/L.35 the Assembly would endorse the recommendations contained in the Committee's report and request the Committee to continue to keep under review the situation relating to the question of Palestine and to report and make suggastions to the General Assembly or the Security Council, as appropriate. The Assembly would also authorize the Committee to continue to exert all efforts to promote the implementation of its recommendations, and to make such adjustments in its programme of work as it considers necessary, to give special emphasis to the need to mobilize public opinion in Europe and North America and to report thereon to the The Assembly would also request the Committee to continue to extend its cooperation to non-governmental organizations and to take the necessary steps (Mr. Cisser Chairman, Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) to expand its contacts with those organizations. In the same draft resolutionr A/47/L.35, ~he Assembly would. request the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, as well as other United Nations bodies associated with the question of Palestine, to continue to cooperate fully with the Committee. Under draft reRolution A/47/L.36, which deals specifically with the role of the Secretariat, the Ge~eral Assembly would request the Secretary-General to provide the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat with the necessary resources, to strengthen its programme of research, studies and publications through the establishment of an adequately staffed and e~uipped computer-based information system on the question of Palestine, and to ensure that it continues to discharge the tasks detailed in previous resolutions, including the organization of seminars, meetings and symposia of non-governmental organizations. It would also invite Governments and organizations to lend their cooperation to the Committee and the Division for Palestinian Rights in the performance of their respective tasks. It would also take note with appreciation of the action taken by Member States to observe annually on 29 November the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. By draft resolution A/47/L.37/Rev.l, which concerns the role of the Department of Public Information, the "General Assembly would reque~t the Department, in cooperation and coordination with the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian Peorle, to continue, with the necessary flexibility as rr.ay be required by developments affecting the (Mr. Ciss;. Chairman. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) question of Palestine, its special information programme on the quest~on of Palestine, with particular emphasis on public opinion in Europe and North America. In particular, it would request the Department to disseminate information on all the activities of the United Nations systems relating to the question of Palestine; to continue to issue and update publications on the various aspects of the question of Palestine; to ~xpand its audiovisual material on the subject; to organize and promote fact-finding news missions for journalists to the area, including the occupied tel:ritories; and, lastly, to organize internationa~, regional and national encounters for journaliEts. Draft resolution A/47/L.38 deals with the peace process. In this text the General As'sembly would refer to the fundamental elements of resolution 46/75 of 11 December 1991. By paragraph 2 the Assembly would welcome the ongoing peace process which started in Madrid and express hopes that it will lead to the establishment of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region. In the next paragraph it would express the need for the United Nations to play a more active and expanded role in the current peace process. In addition, in paragraph 4, the Assembly would state that it considers that the convening, at a certain stage, of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations, with the participation of all parties to the conflict, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, on an equal footing, and the five permanent members of the Security Council, based on Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination, would contribute to the promotion of peace in the region. (Mr. Ci§se,Chairman, Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) In paragraph 5 the Assembly would reaf~irm the principles for the achievement of comprehensive peace: the withdrawal of Israel from thle Palestinian territory occupied since 1961, including Jerusalem, and f~om the other occupied Arab territories; guaranteeing arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181 (11) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries; resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with General Assembly resolution 194 (Ill) of 11 December 1948, and subsequent relevant resolutions; dismantling the Isr~eli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967; a~d, lastly, guaranteeing freedom of access to Holy Places, religious buildings and sites. In paragraphs 6 and 7 the General Assembly would note the expressed desire and endeavours to place the Palestinian territory occupied si~ce 1967, including Jerusalem, under the supervision ~)f the United Nations for a transitional period or, alternatively, to provide international protection for the Palestinian people there, as part of the peace process, and request the Secretary-General to continue his efforts with the parties concerned, and, in consultation with the Security Council, for the promotion of peace in the region, and to submit progress reports on developments in this matter. As can be seen, this text is moderate and objective in its approach to the problem. In adopting it, the General Assembly would make a positive, constructive contribution to the restoration of peace, stability and security in the Middle East, thereby enabling the Palestinian people to make progress towards the recovery of their inalienable and legitimate rights. (Mr. Ciose, Chairman, Committee on ~ Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) I also ha~~ the honour to "introduce draft resolution Al47/L.39. In this draft resolution the General Assembly would condemn the policies and practices of Israel which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem. It would demand that Israel abide scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and desist immediately from those policies and practices which are in violation of the provisions of the Convention. It would call upon all the High Contracting Parties to the Convention to ensure respect by Israel for the Convention. The General Assembly would strongly deplore the continuing disregard by Israel, the occupying Power, of the relevant decisions of the Security Council and reaffirm that the occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territory since 1967, inclUding Jerusalem, and of the other Arab territories in no way changes the legal status of those territories. It would request the Security Council to examine with urgency the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory with a 7iew to considering measures needed to provide international protection to the Palestinian civilians in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, inclUding Jerusalem. It would invite the international community to enhance its support for the Palestinian people and would request the Secretary-General to examine the present situation in the occupied territory by all means available to him and to submit periodic reports thereon. The five draft resolutions I have just introduced were formulated with a firm resolve to contribute to: the peace process that is now under way, to put an end to violence" and repression and to make real progress towards a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of Palestine. On (Mr. Cisse, Chairman, Committee on the Exercisa of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People) behalf of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, I invite delegations to show the same resolve and to demonstrate their solidarity with the Palestinian people once again by taking a position clearly and categorically in favour of these draft resolutions.

The Assembly will now proceed to ~onsider the five draft resolutions, A/47/L.35, L.36, L.37/Rev.l, K..38 and L.39. I shall now call upon representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting on any or all of the draft resolutions. May I recall that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explain their vote after all the votes have been taken. Mr. ROBINSON (United States of America): Since we met last year in this Hall to consider the item entitled "The question of Palestine", an unprecedented set of negotiations has been conducted. The peace process launched at Madrid on 30 October 1991 has resulted in eight rounds of bilateral negotiations thus far between parties l~ the Middle East conflict. This fall the parties condacted a second round 01 multilateral discussions on issues of vital concern to all parties in the Middle East. As a sponsor, with Russia, of the negotiations, we are pleased that the United Nations is now taking part in the multilateral working groups as a full extraregional participant. We look forward to wurking with the United Nations Special Representative for United Nations participation in the multilaterals, Ambassador Gharekhan. (Mr. Robinson, United States) As all parties tQday ·1i!ore aware,. the Unit.ed States is committed to a just, lasting and comprehensivepeac:e.settlel1lentthrough direct negotiations along two track$,..between Israel and the Arab States and between Israel and the Palestinians, based on United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Let me recall what President George Bush said at the openi~g session of the Peace Conference at Madrid on 30 October. He stated: "Peace will only come as a rel5ult of· direct negotiations,. compromise,. give-and-take. Peace cannot be imposed from the outside by the United States or anyone else. While we will continue to do everything possible to help the parties overcome obstacles, peace must come from within." The draft resolutions before the General Assembly today acknowledge the process that bega~ at Madrid. But these resolutions fail to affirm the guiding principle of ongoing negotiations,. namely,. that the Governments and peoples of the region themselves should shape the future of the Middle East. Outsiders - and that includes most Governments represented here today - can only assist the parties directly involved in seizing their responsibilities and persevering in the hard and often frustrating task of resolving the differences that have so long divided them. The Assembly should support the negotiating process that the parties with most at stake have chosen to pursue. While draft resolution A/47/L.38 has improved from last year's resolution 46/75,. we regret that it remains flawed in two ir.lportant respects. First, the draft resolution contains language which seeks to determine the outcome of issues that are no¥ under consideration by the parties to the peace process and that must be resolved through direct negotiations between them. Secondly, (}.fr. RobinsoD, united S~a~es) the draft resolution refr.rs sp~c.i£i~ally to the format and parti~ipants of an international peac0.confeJ:'ence. Aqain, these aJ:'equestions which properly belonq in the hands of those Governmants and peoples in the reqion which have the .most at stake in achievinq peace, seeurityand stability•. As one of the sponsors of the current Middle East Peace Confereuce, the United States finds itself unable to support such a proposal. We wil: therefore vote "No" on this draft resolution. The other draft resolutions introduced under this item are mostly unchanqed from those submitted last year. My deleqation voted aqainst those draft resolutions at that time and will do so aqain today. We would have ~reatly preferred fewer redolutions under this ani other Middle East-related agenda items. In conclusion, let me say that the United States recoqnizes fully the desire of the members of the Assembly to see the peace process in the Middle East move forward and to achieve the goal we all seek: a just, lastinq and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Mr. LOZINSKIY (Russian Federation) (interpretation from Russian): The achievement of a comprehensive, just and lastinq settlement in the Middle East is undoubtedly one of the priority objectives in the preservation and maintenance of international peace and security. The position of the Russian Federation on this issue is well known and was enunciated in our statement at the present session of the General Assembly on 3 December. We believe that under,present conditions the neqotiatinq process begun last year at Madrid is the sole reliable way to achieve a lastinq peace in the Middle East. Notwithstandinq all the difficultif!s, the process is onqoinq and -\.... iS9'~ininciinomellt~(.Qr~atiJ.l9'pr'osPl!cts, foie:dh~~ving.<a 'S$ttlel1l~nt that should , , " .,.<:1, •.,. .. ,' ,;' .... not ,l~a~tothe'victory of ()n.()f'thelpa~ties an~. the. ,Clefeat of tile other but, ;'..' rather, should prO'ddeanopport -4ity for all pe~:?lesof the ~eg.ion to li'Ve in eonditions of peace and Security. ..... ' .. (Mr. Lozinskiy,·Russian Federation) Today as never before, all parties, both those taking part in the negotiations and those that csn contribute to their advancement, must adopt a constructive and responsible approach and reject any steps. that might complicate the peace process. In these'circumstances, the United Nations, which has an obligation to respond sensitively to any change in the international situation, must find an ade~uate form for the most effective assistance it can give to the negotiations in progress. In this connection, the establishment of a favourable atmosphere for achieving a settlement would be particularly significant. Recognizing its obliqation~ as a sponsor of the peace process, the Russian Federation believes it important that the General Assembly should speak out in support of :~. We have expressed the idea that at its present session, instead of presenting the traditional and clearly outdated draft resolution concerning the conveninq of an International Peace Conference on th9 Middle East, the Assembly should adopt a brief draft resolution which would be aimed at promoting the Arab-Israeli negotiations now under way and would not touch upon on the substance of the questions being discussed at those negotiations. In our view, such a draft resolution might read as follows: "The General Assembly, "R~cognizing that the achievement of a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict would be a significant contribution to the cause of consolidating international peace and security, "Noting broad international support for the process of peaceful settlement now taking place within the framlHlork of the Peace Conference on the Middle East, et both the bilateral and the multilateral levels, (Mr. LozinskiYt Russian Federation) "Expressing the hope that the negotiation process will conclude with the achievement of a comprehensive "settlement in the Middle ~~st, "Noting with satisfaction that the parties to the negotiations have begun the discussion of questions relating to the substance of a Middle East settlement, "Emphasizing tha~ the negotiations have entered a crucial stage, "1. Reaffirms the urgent need for the achievement of a comprehensive, just and ll!lsting settlement ef the Arab-Israeli conflict; "2. Welcomes the negotiation process within the framework of the Madrid Peace Conference on the Middle East, taking place at a bilateral level and also in multilateral working groups, as substantial progress towards the practical achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region; "3. Calls on all parties to those peace negotiations to demonstrate a constructive and responsible approach and to continue the search for solutions to the complex questions of a settlement; "4. Calls on all parties involved to endeavour to ensure a favourable atmosphere for the ongoing negot~ations in order to promote their successful conclusion." The delegations of many countries, including a number of Arab States, have supported our idea. The delegation of the United States, the other sponsor of the peace process, has also taken a positive attitude towards the substance of the draft. Vnfortunately, however, the delegations of the countries sponsoring draft resolution A/47/L.38, which deals with an International Peace Confelence on the Middle Eas'_, did not agree to our proposal that adoption of the draft resolution should be deferred. Under (Mr. Lozinskiy, RusRian Federation) these circ~stances, the Russian delegation has no choice but t~ for~o a formal introduction of its draft resolution. We wish to express our regret that a number of countries are continuing to insist on the adoption of a resolution on an International Peace Conference on the Middle East. That initiative played a positive role in the past, giving impetus to the work on the question of practical ways and means to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Today, however, we cannot fail to see that, with the unfoldinq of the current peace process, which is supported by the entire international community, the idea of convening an international conference is not in keeping with existing realities. In essence, the provisions of draft resolution A/47/L.38 calling for the convening of an international conference are in fact a call to substitute such a conference for the process already under way. The principles for achieving peace in the Middle East stated in that draft resolution go beyond the bounds of the Madrid formula, on the basis of which the Arab-Israeli negotiations are taking place, and imposing them can only complicate those negotiations. We are thus forced to conclude that draft resolution A/47/L.38 in fact represents an attempt to erode the basis of the entire peace process by imposing on it the approach of one of the parties to the conflict. Its adoption would work to the detriment of that process, and hence it is counterproductive. We therefore appeal once again to the sponsors of that draft resolution not to put it to the vote. If the sponsors nevertheless insist on a vote on that draft resolution, then the Russian delegation, as a sponso~ of the current peace process for a Middle East settlement, will vote against paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 and will abstain on the draft resolution as a whole. If there is no separate vote, we shall be forced to vote against the entire draft resolution, As for the other draft resolutions under the agenda item entitled "Question of Palestine", the Russian delegation will abstain on draft resolutions A/47/L.35 and A/47/L.39, since they deal with the substance of the questions being discussed in the Arab-Israeli negotiations, a~d will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/47/L.36 and A/47/L.37, dealing with the activities of a number of ~nited Nations bodies.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the voting. The Assembly will now proceed to take a decision on the five draft resolutions before it. I call on Mr. Sukhodrev, Director of General Assembly Affairs. Mr. SUKHODREV: I should like to inform members that, should the General Assembly adopt draft resolutions A/47.L.35, L.36, L.37, L.38 and L.39 concerning the question of Palestine, the Secretary-General does not anticipate that any programme budget implications would arise. As regards the requirements relating to the establishment of an adequately staffed and equipped computer-based information system, referred to in paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/47/L.36, the establishment of such 'a system was already mandated by General Assembly resolution 46/74 S, and reference to it was made in the related statement of programme budget implications in document A/C.5/46/59, submitted to the Assembly at its forty-sixth session. Following a review of the programme of work of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division for Palestinian Rights, it is estimated that additional requirements, inclUding staff resources, arising during the period 1992-1993 for the further development of the information system can be absorbed within available resources.

The ~ssembly will nOw ~eqin the voting process and will first t;a.kea decision on draftll'esolution Al47/L.35. :;:::=-----'\:- A" recorded vote -. ha~/jheen requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicara~~a, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa; Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States of America Abstaining: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Netherla~ds, New Zealand, Norway~ Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sloven~, Solomon Islands, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Draft resolution A/47/L.35 was adopted by 115 votes to 3, with 40 abstentions (resolution 47/64 A).* * Subsequently the delegations of Guinea-Bissau, Sao Tome and Principe and Trinidad and Tobago advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour. ~he PRESIDENT: The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/47/L.36. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, B~rundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire,. Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan A~ab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nartbia, Nepal # Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panam_, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Fedaration, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Israel, United States of Americ3 Abstaining: Al~ania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Netherlandr. New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Draft resolution A/37/L.36 was adopted by 119 votes to 2, with 37 abstentions (resolution 47/64 B).* * Subsequently the delegations of Guinea·-Bissau, Sao Tome and Principe and Trinidad and Tobago advised the Se'retariat that they had intended to vote in favour.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/47/L.37/Rev.l. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia. Et~iopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvi&, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Grea. Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Ye~en, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Israel, United States of America Abstaining: Dominica,n Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of) Draft resolution A/47/L.37/Rev.l was adopted by 152 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions (resolution 47/64 C).* * Subsequently the delegations of Guinea-Bissau, Sao Tome and Principe and Trinidad and Tobago advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/47/L.38. Separate, recorded, votes have been requested on operative paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. Is there any objection to that request? Since there is no objection, I shall first put to the vote operative paragraph 4 of draft resolution A/47/L.38. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic. Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, R~anda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United A=ab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zamb;a, Zimbabwe Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Russian Federation, United States of America Abstaining: Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia. Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Ukra~ne, United Kingdom ~f Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay Paragraph 4 was retained by 87 votes to 5. with 58 abstentions •• • Subsequently the delegations of Liberi~ and Trinidad and Tobago advised the Secretariat that they had intended tt vote in favour.

1 shall now put to the vote operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution A/47/L.38. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados,' Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Ko~ea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, ri.arra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, ~enezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Dominican Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Russian Federation, United States of America Abstaininq~ Albania, Angola, Antigua and Ba~buda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czechosl~vakia, Denmark, Dominica, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, ~iechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay Paragraph 5 was retained by 87 votes to 6, with 59 abstentions •• • Subsequently the delegations of Liberia and Trinidad and Tobago advised the Secretariat that they had intended tc vote in favour.

I shall nQw Pllt t;o the vote operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution AI47IL.38. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia; Comoros .. Costa Rica, Cote d'IliToire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,. India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait; Lao People's Democratic Republic, Leba.non, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius; Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, . Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated StatQs of), Russian ~ederation, United States of America Abstaining: Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Croatia, Czechoslf)vakia, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Estonia"Finland, France, German}', Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuanii.1, Luxembourg, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zeoland, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay Paragraph 6 waG retained by 90 votes to 5. with 57 abstentions •• • Subsequently the delegationu of Liberia and Trinidad a».d Tobago advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.

I now put to the vote draft resol~tion A/47/L.38, as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favoar: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, ·Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia q Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic; Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States of America Abstaining: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominica, DOlninican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay Draft resolution A/47/L.38, as a whole, was adopted by 93 votes to 4, with 60 abstentions (resolution 47/64 D).* * Subsequently, the delegations of Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Sao Tome and Principe and Trinidad 3nd Tobago advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/47/L.39. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica. Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swa=iland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe In favour: Against: Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States of America Abstaining: Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Russian Federation, Togo, Uruguay Draft resolution A/47/L.39 was adopted by 146 votes to 3, with 10 abstentions (resolution 47/64 E).* * Subsequently, the delegations of Guinea-~issau, Sao Tome and Principe and Trinidad and Tobago advi~ed the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.

• shall now call on representatives wishing to explain their votes. May I remind delegations that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote a~e limited to 10 minutes and should be made by deleqations from their seats. Mr. TAYLOR (Canada): Canada this year ab.stained in the voting on draft resolution A/47/L.38, on the International'Peace Conference on the Middle East. In doing so we were aware of and appreciated the efforts the sponsors made to take account of the peace process that began at Madrid in October 1991. Canada strongly supports that process and believes it represents our best hope for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. In the light of the peace process we had hoped that the sponsors would have deferred consideration of the draft resolution, which we believe could send confusing signals and complicate the peace p~ocess. That wa~ the reason for our continued abstention. Canada is also gratefUl to the sponsors for the changes made in draft resolution A/47/L.37/Rev.l, on information, which made it possible for us to vote in favour. We urge the Department of Public Information and the Division of Palestinian Rights to use their best efforts to ensure that the information they disseminate is thoroughly objective and contributes to the success of the peace process. Canada voted in favour of draft resolution A/47/L.39. Canada has always supported the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories and urged Israel to accept its applicability. We would, however, have welcomed a more balanced resolution that reflected the full range of causes of violence in the occupied territories. Canadians hope that the present peace process, in both its bilateral and its mUltilateral aspects, can build to agreements and mutual confidence between all the parties that will eventually end the concerns expressed by these resolutions. Mr. TARI (Israel): My delegation. voted against the draft resolutions just adopted under the agenda item on the question of Palestine because they distort the true nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict and stand in opposition to any genuine notion of peace. We sho~ld like, however, to focus on draft resolution A/47/L.38, calling £or an International Peace Conference on the Middle East, as it stands out as a particularly blatant contradiction of the conditions of the current peace process. This past Monday, 7 December 1992, the bilateral peace negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbours resumed in Washington, D.C. The talks are a continuation of the peace process begun at Madrid under the co-sponsorship of the United States and the Russian Federation. The multilateral working groups have been meeting lately as well, with the United Nations as a full par~icipant. As the peace talks are continuing in both bilateral and multilater~l frameworks, there is no reason for the United Nations to adopt a re~olution calling for an International Peace Conference on the Middle East. Indeed, the Se~retary-General states in his report that "sufficient agreement does not exist to permit the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East". (A/47/7l6, para. 5) Recognizing the contradiction between the current peace process and the resolution on an International Peace Conference, the sponsors of the draft resolution this year inserted wording calling for the convening of the international conference "lit a certainstaqe", rather thall now. This change was made in order to create the impression that the resolution and the current peace 'process are somehow compatible. That, however, is not the case. Operative paraqraph 5 of draft resolution A/~iIL.38, just adopted, enumerates five so-called principles for the achievement of peace. On the one hand, those "principles" c~ear1y prejudqe and predetermine the outcome of the neqotiations, in contradiction to any fair notion of peace. On the other hand, the peace process that beqan in Madrid is based on the principle of direct neqotiations without precQuditions between Israel and its Arab neighbours. The reso1utiou, then, clearly contra~icts the principle under1yinq the current peace process. But we note with satisfaction that many countries did not find it possible to support this resolution. We believe, 3S always, that the proper forum for solvinq the Arab·Israe1i conflict lies in direct neqotiations without preconditions among the parties, and we call upon o'~~ neiqhbcurs to help promote the Middle East peace process. Israel for its part is committed to doing its utmost to brinq this process to a fruitful outcome. Mr. lQIANDOGY (Ukraine): ~e delegation o~ Ukra.inevoted in favour of the draft I;"esolutions contained in doc~unents A/471L.37/Rev.l and A/47/L.39, as both of them address the question of international protection of Palestinians in the occupied territories and the importance of the dissemination of accurate information regarding the situation of human rights in the occupied territories. My delegation abstained, however, on draft resolution Al47/L.38, because its Subject-matter relates to a question that is currently being discussed in the framework of the Madrid peace process. We do not believe it is appropriate to take a position on the issues that a~e under negotiation by all the parties concerned. Furthermore, the delegacion of Ukraine believes that, in view of the ongoing negotiations, the ~uestion of the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East is a matter that can be decided upon with due regard to the final outcome of the Madrid process. It is true that more than a year has passed since the beginning of this process without any ~ubstantial results. But we also think that the four-month-ol~ Israeli Government should be encouraged to demonstrate its declared willingness to seek a lasting settlement in the Middle East that is acceptable to all. Mr. MALIK (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): M¥ delegation voted in favour of all the draft resolutions on the question of Palestine, which were adopted by the Assembly a few moments ago. Neve~theless, and at the same time, we wish to express reservations about the fifth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/47/L.38 for reasons that we have explained on several occasions. I also want to put on record our reservations on the tenth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/47/L.42 on the situation in the Middle East. Mr. It.B0LHASS.ANI-SHAHREZA (Islamic Republic of Iran): Since my delegation is fully committed to the advancement of the Palestinian cause, we voted in favour of the draft resolutions contained in documents A/47/L.35, A/47/L.36, A/47/L.37/Rev.l,< A/471L.38 and A/471L.39. However, my delegation would like to express its reservation regarding those parts of the aforementioned draft resolutions that implicitly or explicitly give recognition to the Zionist entity. Therefore, my delegation requests that its reservation be officially recorded. Mr. PATOKALLIO (Finland): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries - Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Finland. The Nordic countries regret that they had to abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/47/L.38. We also abstained in the separate votes on operative paragraphs 4',5 and 6 of that draft resolution. The Nordic countries strongly support the current Middle East peace process, based as it is on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). We continue to believe that all efforts of the international community should be directed towards assisting the peace process now under way. While the present text is a considerable improvement over the corresponding resolution of last year~ it continues to address substantive issues dealt with in the negotiations in a manner that tends to prejudge their eventual outcome. Moreover, the draft resolution puts an emphasis on a different framework of negotiations than the current peace process. Over a number of years the Nordic countries have supported the idea of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices. Since the Madrid process was initiated, new circumstances have, however, prevailed, and we believe that the discus~ion of a draft resolution on such a United Nations conference is not appropriate at this stage. Mr•. ARRIA (Venezuela) (interpretation ,from Spanish): Venezuela voted in favou~ of the five draft resolutions tha~ the Assembly has just adopted, in unswervinq solidarity with the main purpose of recovering the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. However, we also feel obliged to indicate that the type of language used in some parts of ~raft resolution A/47/L.39 does not, in our opinion, contribute to the success of the, negotiation process in the Middle East. What we really wish to support is the culmination of that process, which would ensure compliance with Security Council resolutions, which are binding on the part~es that have thus accepted them publicly. This language does not, in our view, help to promote the climate of fundamental detente required by a process of normalization that is so complex and sensitive. We cannot but note the very substantial changes that are occurring in the ~eqion, which as never before are offering real and concrete prospects and possibilities. The aggressive language not only does not help or adequat~ly recognize tha current state of affairs, but rather u~dermines and weakens the process. The General Assembly cannot but recognize that new realities and circumstances prevail. We cannot continue to be caught up in the rhetoric of confrontation. Face to face meetings have already produced important results, which we must strengthen. And we must move aheaj not return to the past. Objectively speaking, no one can deny that the peace process of direct negotiations that began in Madrid is making progress. But it is not doing so with the speed that had been hoped for by those of us who consider that the Palestinian cause is closely linked to the purposes and the very cause of the . United Nations, just as the right of the Jews to reconstitute their own State was once linked to that cause. Now it is the struggle of the Palestinians for that very right which is the focus of my delegation's interest, over and above any other conside~ation. The world community has a clearly established opinion and position on the Palestinian cause that it will not abandon. Lastly, public opinion in all countries will play a decisive role in the acceptance of future agreements. That is why we believe it is now essential to set about changing public opinion, which is today firmly entrenched, in order to ensure that the decisions reached garner the indispensable support and are welcomed by public opinion. In this respect, the United Nations has a significant responsibility. Mr. SUMI (Japan): First of all, Japan appreciates the improvement of wording in draft resolution A/47/L.37/Rev.l that made it possible for Japan to vote in favour. This good gesture, we believe, will further enhance the amicable atmosphere in the Madrid peace process. On the other hand, Japan abstained in the voting on the draft resolution on an International Peace Conference on the Middle East. I should like to put on record the reason for its abstention. It has been Japan's policy to support the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations. Moreover, Japan appreciates that this resolution is an improvement over the one submitted last year, s,inee it makes it clear that the International Conference will not supersede the-ongoing talks that were initiated in Madrid last year. My delegation believes, however, that at this juncture we should encourage the ongoing talks and refrain from taking any action that might prejudge the outcome of the talks or send a confused signal to the world. Japan would have preferred this resolution to be deferred and therefore decided to abstain. Mr. CLIFF (United Kingdom): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Community and its member States. We have just abstained in the voting on draft resolution A/47/L.38, concerning the Middle East peace process and the eventual convening of an International Peace Conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Me recognize that the text of this resolution is a considerable imprcvement on that of the resolution on che International Peace Conference on the Middle East adopted last year. Indeed, our difficulty with the resolution is largely one of timing rather than of substance. We do not think it appropriate that the General Assembly should adopt a resolu.tion which prefigures the outcome of negotiations while those negotiations are going on. We would have preferred that this draft resolution not be put to a vote. For the reasons I have juat outlined, we also abstained on the separate votes on operative paragraphs 4,,5 and 6. The European Community and its member States fully support the current Middle East peace process, which is based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). We shall continue to play an active and constructive part in the process in acrordance with our positions of principle as the basis for a just, lasting and comprehensi'J! settlement of the Arab-Israel c~nflict and the Palestinian question We hope that all parties from, the reqion, 'will participate in th,e multilaterals, and welcome the United Nations, participation in the most rece~t round. We,consider that the bilateral and multilateral talks should go hand in hand, each reinforcing the other. There is now an unprecedented opportunity to create peace. It is essential that the commitment shown by the parties to the process be maintained and that a climate of mutual confidence be established. Ms. BIRD (Australia): Draft resolution A/47/L.38, just adopted, on an International Peace Conference on the Middle East fails, in our view, to give significant recognition to the current Middle East peace process. As it stands, the resolution will not do much to assist that :ocess and will be seen by some as prescribing its outcome. In pur view, as the resolution cannot in its current form make a constructive contribution to the settlement of the'Arab-Israel dispute, it would have been preferable to defer the resolution. For these reasons, Australia abstained in the voting on the resolution as a whole and on the three paragraphs on which separate votes were held. Our abstention on the resolution in no way refle=ts any diminution of our concern for a comprehensive, lasting and just settlement in the Middle East and our support for the current Middle East peace process. Australia's vote in favour of draft resolution A/47/L.39, on the uprising of the Palestinian people, is consistent with the concern we have long expressed at the violence in the territories and the violations of human rights which have resulted from Israeli measures taken against the intifadah. Australia has, however, consistently taken the position that the General Assembly, in the wording of its resolutions, should avoid provocative language which exacerbates differences and hinders peacemaking, rather than constructively advancing it, and there are aspects of this resolution which are less balanced t.han they might be in this respes::t. The situation in the occupied territories requires an approach that seeks accommodation and an end of violence from all quarters. An understanding of the situation in the occupied .territories requires not only an appreciation of the legitimate claims of the Palestinian people to self-determination, but recoqnition of the historical situation in which Israel has found itself from its original establishment by a decision of this Organization, of the pattern of conflict continuing over a period of 42 years, and of the concern Israel has for its own security and survival so long as its right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries is not universally accepted. The great difficulty Israel has faced in dealing with the situation in 1 the occupied territories serves to reinforce the urgent need for a comprehensive settlement to the Arab_Israeli dispute. Australia bherefore encourages all parties to continue to participate constructively in the bilate~al and multilateral discussions in the current Middle East peace process. ~he PRESIPENI: In accordance with General Assembly resolutions 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974-and 43/177 of 15 DecembeJ:' 1988, I now call on the Observer of Pa.lestine. Mr. AL-KIDWA (Palestine) (interpretation from Arabic): In the name of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations and on behalf of the Palestinian people both in and outside the occupied territories, and also on behalf of the Palestinian leadership and of the negotiating delegation of Palestine to the current peace process, which started in Madrid last year - on behalf of all of the aforementioned, I am privileged and honoured to extend our thanks and our deepest appreciation to all those Member States that have voted in favour of the important resolutions that were adopted by the General Assembly a while ago. We should also like to express our understanding to those who have abstained this year hoping to witness a positive change towards positive voting next year. We have already put forward in detail, in our statement dated 7 December before the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, our approach in dealing with the resolutions of the General Assembly in view of the current peace process, as well as the principles that we think the Assembly should always invoke. We shall not repeat the same statement now; however, we should like to underscore the importance now and in the future of those principles which we have defined as follows: firstly, the permanent responsibility of the United Nations vis-a-vis the question of Palestine, until this question is resolved in practice and in all its aspects; secondly, the effectiveness and implementation of United Nations resolutions, particularly those of the Security Council, that are binding, regardless of developments in the current (Mr. AI-Kidwa,Palestine) pElace process, which, we support, or in an:r other process; and thirdl:r, the principle that an:r positive change in the international communit:r's stancEl towards Israel, should alwa:rs be meticulousl:r concurrent with and equal to genuine progress in the peace process and in t~a actual situation on the ground in the occupied territories. In this respect, we regret that, so far, we see no justification at all for such a change. At an:r rate, we cannot understand that the negotiations and the current peace talks in which we participa~e and which we support, could justify changing the principled sound position of Member States in a negative direction. This is something we cannot ~nderstand and which, we think, is detrimental to the peace process, above all else. In this connection, and in view of the traditional friendship between the Russian and Palestinian peoples, we cannot but express our regret as to the position taken b:r the Russian Federation. We think that this position might affect its credibility as cosponsor of the peace process, and put in question the ver:r logic of having two sponsors for the Conference and for the current peace process. Along with all of our Arab b~ethren and our friends in the Islamic world and the non-aligned countries, we have demonstrated considerable flexibility by not putting draft resolution A/47/L.41 to the vote at this stage and submitting a general conception that is positive, without, of course, abandoning our principles. We appreciate the responsiveness of some Member States, while we regret that other countries did not respond. However we believe, as I have said before, in the possibility of future improvement through dialogue and continous discussion. Once aqain, the General Assembly of the United Nations has stood by riqht and justice and championed peace. This, if our view, is the real victory that has been achieved today. The General Assembly has sent the correct message to all the parties concerned, to our lonq sufferinq people in the occupied territories, to the Israeli Government and to all the other Arab parties. I conclude by thanking you all for your continued support over the years and for this instance of support in particular.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes after the vote. -May I first remind delegations that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. AKAY (Turkey): Turkey voted against the draft resolution on the law of the sea (A/47/L.28), which has just been adopted by the General Assembly. The reason for my delegation's negative vote is that some of the elements contained in the Convention on the Law of the Sea that prevented Turkey from approving the Convention are retained in this resolution. Turkey supports the international efforts to establish a regime of the sea that is based on the principle of equity and is acceptable to all States. However, the Convention does not make adequate provision for special geographical situations and, consequently, is not able to establish a satisfactory balanc~ between conflicting interests. Furthermore, the Convention makes no provision for the registering of reservations on specific clauses. Although we agree with the Convention in its general intent and with most of its provisions, we were unable, owing to these serious shortcomings, to sign it. This being the case, we cannot accept the provision in this resolution that requires States, in drafting their national legislation, to conform with the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Mr. MARTINlZ GONPRA (~rgentina) (inte~pretat:ion from SpaniSh): My country interprets the third preambUlar paragraph a,nd operative paragraph 7 0.£ this resolution in accordance with the statement made by the Argentine Republic on 5 October 1984, when it signed the UnitedNati~ns Conventio~ on the Law of the Seain particular, with the last paragraph of that: statement, which says that the Conve~tio~ itself clearly establishes in article 318 that only its annexes form an integr~l part of it.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second, and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. LIAQ Jincheng (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Yesterday afternoon one representative, in the course of his speech, spent quite a long time talking about the dispute on Nanhai - South China Sea - ta~ritory. He made a claim to sovereignty over the archipelagos of Xisha and Nansha. The Chinese delegation wishes to state its position. Since ancient times the archipelagos of Xisha and Nansha have been part of the Chinese territory, and Wan'an reef is part of China's Nansha archipelago. China has sufficient historical and jurisprudential evidence to prove this fact, and it possesses indisputable territorial sovereignty over those two archipelagos. We have always held that the dispute over Nansha archipelago should be resolved by peaceful means, through negotiations between the countries concerned. We have also put forward the proposal of shelving the dispute for common exploration. Hr. LI 'D01fG' HIBB urlet ltph I"l.hto respon4to the sta.tement ma(1eby the repl'&senta.tl,ve'of Chinain .:II:'I'c:ll1.o~ his' .1'~9bt of reply., " I, Para,cels, and Truoncl Sa, or Spr~tly. ' Vie.tHam's positi.on on this questi.onis clear:' .the archipelagos of HoanqSa,orParacels"ana Truong Sa, 'or Spratly, a.repartsof Vietnamese territory. They come UJlder the SOvereign rights of Viet Ham. aoweve~, ". J:.'.cogni:a~,.that tb:ere are cC)unt;ries whichl1avemade $overeignty dams over t;hese aJ:.'c)llpe1agos, Weadvocatepeacef\ll negoi;iations with all countrie. concerned. to aettle thedisput:elS. ConcerningtheCJU,estion Of the EasterD. Sea, we have 011 many occasions voiced Qursupport for the. Association of SOUth-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) declaration of 22 July 1992. In his statement before the Assemb'ly yesterday the Permanent Representative of Viet Nom made our po~ition clear. I will not go any further. The PRESIpENT: We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda item 32. The meeting rose at 2.10 p.m.