A/49/PV.90 General Assembly

Thursday, Dec. 15, 1994 — Session 49, Meeting 90 — New York — UN Document ↗

The meeting was called to order at 3.25 p.m.
Vote: A/RES/49/65 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (161)
Vote: A/RES/49/67 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (118)
Vote: A/RES/49/68 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (166)
Vote: A/RES/49/69 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (116)
Vote: A/RES/49/72 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✗ No (3)
✓ Yes (156)
Vote: A/RES/49/73 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (168)
Vote: A/RES/49/74 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (1)
✓ Yes (170)
Vote: A/RES/49/75B Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (139)
Vote: A/RES/49/75C Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (150)
Vote: A/RES/49/75E Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (111)
Vote: A/RES/49/75F Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (103)
Vote: A/RES/49/75G Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (1)
✓ Yes (169)
Vote: A/RES/49/75H Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (163)
Vote: A/RES/49/75K Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (78)
Vote: A/RES/49/75N Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (1)
✓ Yes (171)
Vote: A/RES/49/75O Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (164)
Vote: A/RES/49/75P Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (1)
✓ Yes (171)
Vote: A/RES/49/76E Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (115)
Vote: A/RES/49/77D Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (158)
Vote: A/RES/49/78 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (100)
Vote: A/RES/49/82 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (131)
Vote: A/RES/49/84 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (3)
✓ Yes (161)

14.  Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency Draft resolution: A/49/L.2/Rev.2 Amendments: A/49/L.15/Rev.1 and A/49/L.22

The President [French] #15656
Members will recall that the debate on this item was concluded on Monday, 17 October. I call on the representative of Turkey to introduce draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2.

Introduction of the reports of the First Committee

Vote: A/49/690 Consensus
Mr. Guven TUR Türkiye #15657
After lengthy discussions the sponsors of draft resolution A/49/L.2 have tried to accommodate the concerns of some delegations. We have introduced a new paragraph in the preambular part and extended the scope of some of the existing paragraphs. In this context I would like especially to refer to the third and eleventh preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution as now contained in document A/49/L.2/Rev.2. In the preambular paragraph we have added new language to underline the right of those countries that have concluded relevant safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of the Treaty, other relevant articles and with the object and purposes of the Treaty. By including the eleventh preambular paragraph in the text of the draft resolution before us, the sponsors intended to emphasize the mechanism for consideration of the enlargement of the Board of Governors of the Agency. The sponsors are convinced that with these amendments the concerns of some delegations have been adequately addressed. In the same way, by inserting "and other relevant internationally legally binding agreements" in the fourth and fifth lines of the third preambular paragraph, the sponsors accommodated the concerns of some countries that are parties to regional treaties creating nuclear-weapon-free zones - that is to say, the Treaty of Tlatelolco and Rarotonga, to which IAEA safeguards apply. It is the wish of the sponsors that the draft resolution be adopted by consensus.
The President [French] #15658
I call next on the representative of Iraq, to introduce proposed amendments to draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, contained in document A/49/L.22.

72.  Final text of a treaty on an African nuclear-weapon-free zone: report of the First Committee (A/49/709)

Vote: 32/413 Recorded Vote
✓ 161   ✗ 3   3 abs.
Show country votes
— Abstain (3)
Mr. Hasan IRQ Iraq [Arabic] #15659
Before introducing the proposed amendments to draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, contained in document A/49/L.22, my delegation wishes to express its great In document A/49/L.22, my delegation proposes two amendments to draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2. The first relates to the eighth preambular paragraph, which currently reads as follows: Spoke in English. “Noting from the Director General’s statement that the Agency is now in a position to implement its ongoing monitoring and verification plan in Iraq”. (A/49/L.2/Rev.2, eighth preambular para.) That paragraph is intentionally vague. To which statement of the Director General does the paragraph refer, and when was it made? Furthermore, the word “now” in this paragraph is also intentionally ambiguous. The fact is that the Director General stated in paragraph 49 of his sixth report to the Security Council, transmitted to the Council on 10 October 1994, that “with the establishment at the end of August of the IAEA continuous presence in Iraq, all elements of the IAEA Plan are now in place”. (S/1994/1151, annex, para. 49) Thus, my delegation proposes replacing the eighth preambular paragraph with the following factual paragraph: “Noting from the report of the Director General to the Security Council dated 6 October 1994 [(S/1994/1151, annex)] that all elements of the Agency’s ongoing monitoring plans in Iraq have been in place since the end of August 1994”. (A/49/L.22, para. 1) This amendment represents a just and fair reference to the Director General’s report. The second amendment we are proposing relates to the end of operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution, which currently reads as follows: “... stresses the need for Iraq to cooperate fully with the Agency in achieving the complete and long-term This wording does not reflect the facts. The report of the Director General to the Security Council, transmitted on 10 October 1994, states that “The ensuing series of high-level technical talks marked a turning-point in the level of cooperation and support extended by the Iraqi authorities to IAEA and the Special Commission. This change in the Iraqi attitude has enabled inspectors’ work to be conducted effectively and has contributed significantly to expediting the process of establishing ongoing monitoring and verification, as called for in the Security Council resolutions”. (S/1994/1151, annex, para. 4) In the light of this clear statement about Iraqi cooperation, our delegation suggests replacing the words “the need for Iraq to cooperate fully” with the words “the need for Iraq to continue its cooperation” (A/49/L.22, para. 2). These amendments do not reflect Iraq’s views; they reflect those of the IAEA. They make the text less ambiguous and more realistic. We therefore hope that all delegations will view our proposed amendments favourably.
Spoke in Arabic.
The President [French] #15660
The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2 and on the amendments proposed in document A/49/L.22. The following countries have become sponsors of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2: Lithuania and South Africa. Before calling on the first speaker in explanation of vote before the vote, I would remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and that delegations should make their statements from their seats.

63.  Review and implementation of the Concluding Document of the Twelfth Special Session of the General Assembly: report of the First Committee (A/49/700)

Vote: 57/60 Consensus

64.  Review of the implementation of the recommendations and decisions adopted by the General Assembly at its tenth special session: report of the First Committee (A/49/701)

Vote: 57/60 Consensus
Vote: A/49/710 Consensus
Mr. Pak PRK Democratic People's Republic of Korea #15661
The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea believes that there are no legal grounds whatsoever for the inclusion of serious political issues such as the nuclear issue in draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2 on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has stated its position time and again: that the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula should be resolved bilaterally by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States. Particularly, it has long opposed consideration of the nuclear issue by the General Assembly or the Security Council, and has categorically rejected all unreasonable resolutions regarding this issue. Previous consideration of the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula at the United Nations proved to be of no help to the resolution of the issue. Rather, it was misused by insidious elements in their attempts to block a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue, with the sole intention of increasing pressure upon us and aggravating tensions on the Korean peninsula to the extreme. All these facts have clearly shown that the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula can be resolved only through the talks between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States of America, not at the United Nations. It is well known that the delegations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States, at the Geneva talks held from 23 September to 21 October 1994, reaffirmed the DPRK-USA joint statement of 11 June 1993 and signed the agreed framework on the final resolution of the nuclear issue. It is legally stipulated in the framework agreed between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States that the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is one to be resolved between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States and that those two countries are responsible for it. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States are holding expert-level talks on implementation of the agreed framework, having already taken some measures to implement what is envisaged therein. There is no justification whatsoever for the adoption of a draft resolution aimed at putting pressure on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at a time when the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States are undertaking practical measures to implement the agreed framework. If the sponsors of the draft resolution want a fair solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula they will not block but, rather, will facilitate implementation of the framework agreed between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United States. For those reasons the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will vote against the ninth preambular paragraph and paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, which was introduced by Turkey.
Mr. Kumar IND India #15662
India has been a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since the inception of that body in 1957. We have consistently attached the highest importance to the objectives of the IAEA, and we are active participants in its activities. Since this draft resolution concerns the activities of the IAEA as a whole — something to which we attach great value — we are inclined to go along with it. However, we have considerable difficulty with the third preambular paragraph. The draft resolution on the IAEA is a traditional one. The language of the third preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev. 2 implies a link between adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and freedom to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that Article II of the IAEA’s statute, referring to the Agency’s objectives, states explicitly that it “shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world”. Article II continues: “It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purposes.” By implying that adherence to the non-proliferation Treaty — a matter on which my Government’s views are well known — has a bearing on access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the draft resolution goes beyond the scope of the IAEA statute. We are therefore constrained to call for a vote on the third preambular paragraph.
Mr. Leahy USA United States of America #15663
It is the position of my delegation that the amendments that have been submitted in document A/49/L.22 are not accurate. A review of the entire report from which they are drawn reveals instances in which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) determined that Iraqi officials either had been less than forthcoming or had attempted to conceal facts. The United States applauds the diligence and determination of the IAEA in its pursuit of facts in Iraq, but we cannot support amendments to this draft resolution that, taken out of the context in which they were originally presented, distort the degree of Iraqi cooperation with IAEA inspectors. In our view, the language regarding Iraq is seriously deficient. It would be far more appropriate for this draft resolution to call upon the Government of Iraq to “improve its cooperation” with international inspectors.
Vote: 57/61 Consensus
Vote: 57/61 Consensus
The President [French] #15664
The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2 and on the amendments contained in documents A/49/L.15/Rev.1 and A/49/L.22. In accordance with rule 90 of the rules of procedure, the amendments will be voted on first. Rule 90 also stipulates: “When two or more amendments are moved to a proposal, the General Assembly shall first vote on the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal and then on the amendment next furthest removed therefrom, and so on until all the amendments have been put to the vote.” The Assembly will therefore take a decision first on the amendment circulated in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1.
Mr. Rudolph DEU Germany on behalf of European Union and its acceding States and the other sponsors #15665
I should like, on behalf of the European Union and its acceding States — Austria, Finland and Sweden — and the other sponsors of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, to raise a point of order in connection with the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1, which was submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran. On behalf of the European Union and its acceding States and the other sponsors, I formally move, under the terms of rule 74 of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure, that no action be taken on that amendment. I should also like to request a recorded vote. The amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 raises an issue that is not relevant to the General Assembly’s annual resolution on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The new operative paragraph proposed in the amendment goes beyond IAEA issues to the question of export licensing, for which the IAEA has no mandate. Export licensing arrangements derive from obligations under articles I, II and III of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. They are not within the purview of the IAEA and are not relevant to this draft resolution. The language of the proposed amendment emphasizes the rights of recipient States without reference to the supplier States’ corresponding duty to ascertain whether the potential recipient State is adhering to non- proliferation obligations. The proposed amendment seeks to undermine the broad international recognition accorded to the work of the IAEA each year by the General Assembly. This serves neither the IAEA nor the international community, whose security interests are well served through the IAEA’s safeguards system. We should also like to highlight the significant work performed by the IAEA in the framework of its technical cooperation programme to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Such highly divisive language as that contained in A/49/L.15/Rev.1, far from being helpful in this regard, would severely jeopardize the IAEA’s role in effectuating the transfer of nuclear techniques for peaceful purposes. In this connection, we should like to emphasize that the sponsors have made every effort to accommodate At a time when the central element of the nuclear non- proliferation regime is being asked by the international community to perform new and expanding tasks, it would be particularly unfortunate if the General Assembly were not to adopt the annual IAEA draft resolution with the customary support. We therefore hope that the proposed amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 will be rejected.
The President [French] #15666
Within the terms of rule 74 of the rules of procedure, the representative of Germany has proposed that no action be taken on the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1. Rule 74 reads as follows: “During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote.” I shall now call on the two representatives who have asked to speak in favour of the motion.
Mr. Keating NZL New Zealand #15667
The annual draft resolution on this agenda item has traditionally been uncontroversial. It has been an opportunity to recognize and express support for the important and valuable work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Up until very recently this annual draft resolution was consistently adopted by consensus. Last year it was adopted with the near unanimous support of the General Assembly. Sponsors last year, like those this year, were drawn from every continent, and only one delegation opposed the draft resolution. This year a number of amendments were proposed by various delegations. The sponsors have worked hard to include in the draft resolution those amendments which could reasonably be related to the work of the Agency. The sponsors have sought to put together a draft resolution which could command broad support from the international community. Some amendments, however, could not be incorporated into the text. In this regard, my delegation believes that the amendment proposed in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 should not be included. We believe it introduces a divisive political element into a resolution The proposed amendment in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 seeks to assert a right of unrestricted access to nuclear equipment, materials and scientific and technological information. While it refers to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the amendment does not take into account the specific provisions of the Treaty. This omission speaks volumes. Let us remember that article I of the Treaty obliges nuclear-weapon States to ensure that any nuclear technology they provide is not used directly or indirectly for proliferation purposes. Secondly, article II obliges non-nuclear-weapon States not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. And, thirdly, article III obliges recipient States to accept IAEA safeguards. This article explicitly rejects any suggestion that trade in nuclear technology can be unrestricted. So, too, does article IV, which the amendment now before us quotes from selectively and incompletely. In the text submitted by the sponsors, the issue of technical cooperation and access to nuclear technology without discrimination is already dealt with. The third preambular paragraph of the draft resolution in document A/49/L.2/Rev.2 reflects in an appropriately balanced fashion any legitimate concerns on this issue. Most importantly, the sponsors’ preambular paragraph does what the amendment fails to do: it refers explicitly to articles I and II and other relevant articles of the Non- Proliferation Treaty. The sponsors of this draft resolution have twice offered compromise language to specifically address the issues raised in the text of document A/49/L.15/Rev 1. Despite the sponsors’ best efforts at compromise, we are still faced with essentially the same amendment. Therefore we can only conclude that the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 is not acceptable. This is a critical period for nuclear non-proliferation. For this reason, we believe it is very important that the work of the IAEA enjoy the full confidence of the General Assembly. The Agency is playing a vital monitoring role around the world. It is increasingly being asked to perform more and more crucially important tasks. All of us therefore have a common interest in supporting the Agency’s work.
Mr. Tuma CZE Czechia #15668
As one of the sponsors of the draft resolution (A/49/L.2/Rev.2) on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), I wish to speak in favour of the no-action motion in respect of the proposed amendment to the draft resolution, which was submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran and is contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1. We have agreed to speak in support of this no-action motion because of the seriousness with which we view the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1. My delegation considers that this amendment runs counter to the purpose and objective of this essentially procedural draft resolution, which serves as an important endorsement of the work of the IAEA by the General Assembly. The sponsors have made considerable efforts to take account of the issues which are the subject of the amendment submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the third preambular paragraph of the draft resolution the reference to the importance of access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy by all States which have concluded safeguards agreements with the Agency has been included in recognition of the importance many developing countries attach to it. We regret that we have had to conclude that the language proposed by Iran in A/49/L.15/Rev.1 is an unacceptable deviation from language agreed by 168 countries in treaty form. In the same spirit of cooperation the sponsors have added a new preambular paragraph that refers to the resolution on the amendment of article VI of the statute of the Agency adopted by its General Conference in September of this year. My delegation is aware that this is a matter that is of concern to many countries, and we therefore believed it was appropriate to refer to it in the draft resolution. In so doing, my delegation believes that the sponsors have responded to the original second amendment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner which does not encroach upon the authority and responsibility of the Agency. In conclusion, the Czech Republic attaches great importance to the adoption of the draft resolution with the broadest possible support. It is vital that the work of the Agency, which has played an indispensable role in the
The President [French] #15669
We have just heard two speakers in favour of the motion submitted by Germany. Does any other member wish to speak?
Mr. Takht-Ravanchi IRN Islamic Republic of Iran #15670
First, I would like to emphasize the fact that the comments made by the representatives of Germany and New Zealand are irrelevant to this subject because they addressed the contents of our original amendment in A/49/L.15, which is no longer before the Assembly. This is perhaps due to the fact that my delegation has not been given a chance to introduce the revised version of our amendment, contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1. The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran rejects the motion of non-action moved by the representative of Germany on the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1 for the following reasons: The Islamic Republic of Iran, as a committed Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), firmly believes that the rights of developing countries Parties to the NPT and IAEA to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes are denied by certain developed countries that, in violation of their obligations under the relevant legal instruments, are determined to perpetuate discrimination in international relations through the proliferation of export-control measures, closed-door clubs and ad hoc regimes such as the London Suppliers and Australia Group. The draft resolution in document A/49/L.2 and its revised version, L.2.Rev.2, despite some cosmetic changes, fails to recognize explicitly and reaffirm the rights of States Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The first paragraph of our original amendment in document L.15, dated 8 November 1994, was taken from the substantive paper submitted by the group of non-aligned and other States to the Third Preparatory Committee of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Non- Proliferation Treaty, document NPT/CONF.1995/TC.3/13, of 14 September 1994. It was nothing but a reaffirmation of the rights of States Parties under article IV of the NPT The second paragraph of the original amendment called for an early decision on the expansion of the Board of Governors of the IAEA, which was dictated by such new realities as the increasing disparity between the overall membership of the Agency compared to the current composition of the Board of Governors, which was established more than 30 years ago. The sponsors of the draft resolution refrained from negotiations on our amendment until 8 December 1994, when they approached the Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to work on a compromise language. Subsequently, a small group of the Movement of Non- Aligned Countries and a small group of sponsors met on 8 and 9 December and negotiated and agreed, ad referendum, on two compromise operative paragraphs which would replace our original amendment, namely, L.15. Unfortunately, the subsequent response of the sponsors to the compromise formulations was negative, and they reneged on the agreement and decided not to continue the negotiations. Therefore, one cannot but doubt the sincerity of the move made on 8 December to work on a compromise language. In light of the foregoing, my delegation, after consultations with some of the members of the Non- Aligned Movement, decided to submit a revised version of L.15 based on the compromise language negotiated between a small group of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and a small group of the sponsors on Friday, 9 December 1994. Moreover, we decided not to insist on the second compromise language on the expansion of the Board of Governors for the time being, in order to enhance the chance of a smooth adoption of the draft resolution. The amendment contained in A./49/L.15/Rev.1 is consistent with article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the thrust of the draft resolution. We do recommend to Member States, in particular the developing countries, to support this amendment in its entirety and to reject the motion of non- action by casting a negative vote on it.
The President [French] #15671
I should simply like to note that the amendment in A/49/L.15/Rev.1 was not introduced because there was no request to do so, unlike the case of A/49/L.22, introduced by Iraq. Does any other delegation wish to speak against the motion? A recorded vote has been requested on the motion. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, 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, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zambia Against: Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe Abstaining: Afghanistan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Georgia, Ghana, India, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritius, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Venezuela
The President [French] #15672
Since the motion for no action is adopted, no action will be taken on the amendment contained in document A/49/L.15/Rev.1. The Assembly will next proceed to take a decision on the amendments contained in document A/49/L.22. A separate vote has been requested on each amendment. As I hear no objection, I shall put each amendment to the vote. I first put to the vote the amendment contained in paragraph 1 of document A/49/L.22. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Algeria, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Guyana, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guinea, Honduras, Israel, Kuwait, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Netherlands, Nicaragua, Peru, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia Abstaining: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland,
The amendment was rejected by 32 votes to 31, with 87 abstentions.
The President [French] #15673
I will next put to the vote the amendment contained in paragraph 2 of document A/49/L.22. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Algeria, Botswana, Brazil, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Myanmar, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Guinea, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Netherlands, Nicaragua, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Zambia Abstaining: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark,
The amendment was adopted by 37 votes to 31, with 84 abstentions.
The President [French] #15674
A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraph 7, just amended, of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2. A separate vote has also been requested on the third and ninth preambular paragraphs and on operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2. As there appears to be no objection, I shall put those paragraphs to the vote first. I shall put to the vote first the third preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The third preambular paragraph was adopted by 154 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions.
The President [French] #15675
I next put to the vote the ninth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The ninth preambular paragraph was adopted by 137 votes to 2, with 14 abstentions.
The President [French] #15676
I now put to the vote operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Operative paragraph 6 was adopted by 142 votes to 2, with 10 abstentions.
The President [French] #15677
I now put to the vote operative paragraph 7, as amended, of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Operative paragraph 7, as amended, was adopted by 63 votes to 1, with 84 abstentions.
The President [French] #15678
I now put to the vote draft resolution A/49/L.42/Rev.2 as a whole, as amended. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, as a whole, as amended, was adopted by 161 votes to 1, with 6 abstentions (resolution 49/65).
Mr. Leahy USA United States of America #15679
My delegation was pleased to join others in support of this resolution, which recognizes the important work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The diverse programmes of the IAEA serve the interests of the international community in many ways. Countless individual lives on all continents benefit from IAEA-supported programmes such as nuclear medicine, agriculture, animal husbandry and pest control. The safety with which nuclear materials and technology are managed worldwide is enhanced daily by IAEA-sponsored training and guidelines. International security is reinforced through the ongoing application of IAEA safeguards. The United States is proud of its long and well- established record of strong support for the IAEA, and I should like to reiterate my Government’s commitment to continuing this support. We look forward to working with others to strengthen further the work and role of this vital international institution.
Mr. Wu Chengjiang CHN China [Chinese] #15680
The Chinese delegation abstained on draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In that connection, I wish to state the following. First, our abstention on the draft resolution does not affect the Chinese delegation’s view of the work of the IAEA. In our statement in the general debate on this item on 17 October last, we gave a comprehensive and positive appraisal of the work of the IAEA over the past year. Secondly, as regards the individual resolutions referred to in the resolution adopted by the Agency’s Board of Governors at the General Conference, the Chinese delegation reserves its views as expressed in the relevant forums. Thirdly, the Chinese delegation believes that the General Assembly resolution on the Agency’s annual report should not enter into the specifics of the work of the Agency, especially on issues as controversial as the Korean nuclear question. This is not helpful when the parties concerned are conducting negotiations.
Mr. Jacob ISR Israel #15681
Israel voted against the third preambular paragraph of the draft resolution just adopted. Israel believes that all States members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, without discrimination, and regardless of whether or not they are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or other relevant international agreements, should enjoy the full rights envisaged in the Agency’s statute. The language of the third preambular paragraph is not clear enough in this regard. Therefore, Israel voted against this paragraph.

General and complete disarmament: report of the First Committee (A/49/699)

Vote: 57/61 Consensus
Mr. Kumar IND India #15682
An important area of the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) relates to the application of safeguards, and the Agency has embarked upon a major exercise on the strengthening of the safeguards system. We attach importance to this exercise, which is aimed at making the safeguards system more efficient and cost-effective. In this context, one of the recurring themes over the past year in the meetings of the Agency’s Board has been the implementation of the safeguards agreement between the Agency and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. This is a complex and substantive issue in which there have been many developments, both technical and political. Our point of view has been consistent. We believe that the best way in which this difficult issue can be resolved is through patient discussions among all the concerned parties. We have supported a policy of cooperation and dialogue, rather than confrontation and deadlines, and in this spirit have welcomed the discussions between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was for that reason that in the Board we abstained on those resolutions that we felt were not contributing to a positive result. We had similar reservations concerning the ninth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/49/L.2/Rev.2, and therefore we abstained on those paragraphs.
Mr. Moradi IRN Islamic Republic of Iran #15683
The Islamic Republic of Iran attaches great importance to the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and we have therefore consistently supported its activities. I should like to refer to our statement on 17 October last, before the Assembly, under agenda item 14, when we took note with satisfaction of the report of the Agency and the statement of Mr. Hans Blix, its Director General. However, my delegation abstained on the draft resolution contained in document A/49/L.2/Rev.2, for the reason that we explained earlier today — namely, the lack of any reference to the rights of the States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to use and have access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, free from discriminatory restrictions promoted by certain developed countries.
The President [French] #15684
May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 14?
It was so decided.
The President [French] #15685
The Assembly will now consider the reports of the First Committee on agenda items 53 and 64 (f), 54 to 73 and 153. I request the Rapporteur of the First Committee to introduce the reports of the First Committee in one intervention. Mr. Goosen (South Africa), Rapporteur of the First Committee: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the General Assembly the reports of the First Committee on agenda items 53 and 64 (f), 54 to 73 and 153. Those reports are contained in documents A/49/690 to A/49/711. Responding to the Assembly’s appeal that it conduct its work in a spirit of rationalization and make better use of the Organization’s resources, the Committee further reduced the number of its meetings and concluded its work in the course of 26 formal and eight informal meetings. In order to enhance its effectiveness, the Committee this year The Committee considered 46 draft resolutions and two draft decisions altogether, while one draft resolution and one draft decision were withdrawn by the respective sponsors. Twenty-four, or 60 per cent, were adopted without a vote. The disarmament calendar for 1994 has been very intensive. During this last year, Member States have been addressing issues that range across the full spectrum of disarmament questions. The debates of the First Committee were a reflection of this, and the statements that were made by Member States were characterized by a large measure of consensus on the issues that need to be focused upon. Some of the issues that were most widely referred to included the following. One issue was the recognition of the disarmament- related advances that have been achieved over the last year. A number of delegations, however, noted that the high expectations that prevailed following the end of the cold war have become subdued. They also noted that there is a disturbing escalation in armed conflict around the world. Another issue was the 1995 Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which will be reviewing the Treaty’s operation and which will also be deciding on the extension of the life of the NPT. Virtually every delegation that spoke during the debates referred to the NPT and its extension. Also, negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) are being conducted within the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Many delegations made a point of noting that the draft CTBT text is still heavily bracketed. Other issues included the proposed treaty for the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices; calls for the early conclusion of legally binding nuclear security assurances in favour of non-nuclear-weapon States; the Another issue was the establishment of the Ad Hoc Group of Governmental Experts of the Biological Weapons Convention. The progress which was made at the September 1994 Special Conference of the States Parties to the Convention in Geneva was commended by most of the speakers. With respect to transparency in armaments with specific reference to the Register of Conventional Arms, the role that greater transparency plays by inspiring confidence was generally recognized. The important role of the United Nations Register in this process was also raised by most speakers. It was, however, acknowledged that the Register as it is now structured can be improved. A final issue was the international community’s concern about the carnage that is being caused by anti-personnel land-mines and the ongoing negotiations currently under way concerning, inter alia, Protocol II of the Convention on certain conventional weapons. Fifteen out of 45 resolutions that were adopted dealt with nuclear-related issues. The Non-Proliferation Treaty was the focus of two draft resolutions. I should like to take this opportunity to draw members’ attention in particular to the accession to the NPT by a number of new States Parties, and in this context the Ukraine’s accession as a non-nuclear-weapon State deserves special mention. As was the case last year, the issues related to the comprehensive test ban treaty commanded keen attention from the Committee. The Committee once again adopted a consensus draft resolution on the CTBT, in which it welcomed the progress achieved in the course of negotiations within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament and urged the Conference "to negotiate intensively, as a high priority task" (A/49/694, para. 4). Other nuclear-related draft resolutions that were considered and adopted by the Committee were two draft resolutions on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations. The draft resolutions on nuclear-weapon-free zones in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were adopted without a A new draft resolution in which the Committee has requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons was introduced. Draft resolutions were also introduced on the "step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat", on "Weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery" and on "Nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination on nuclear weapons". The first two draft resolutions are somewhat similar in conceptual thrust and aim at the destruction proper of certain types of weapons and their delivery means within an agreed time frame. On regional disarmament measures issues, three draft resolutions were adopted: the "Regional confidence- building measures" draft resolution, which was adopted by the Committee without a vote; and the "Regional disarmament" and "Conventional arms control on regional and subregional levels" draft resolutions, which carried by a comfortable majority of votes. As was expected, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms received considerable attention. The confidence-building potential of the Register was emphasized by some delegations. At the same time, concerns were expressed at a number of issues relating to the Register and its implementation. This included the lack of agreement by the Group of Governmental Experts on recommendations for the expansion of the Register to include other categories of weapons in it, as well as data on procurement and military holdings. Two draft resolutions, respectively calling for a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel mines and welcoming the progress achieved in reviewing the Convention on chemical weapons, were adopted without a vote. There was general outrage at the human suffering caused to innocent civilians by these weapons. In this connection, the report of the Secretary-General on the subject was highly appreciated by the Committee. Once again this year the Committee took up the issue of science and technology. As in previous years, it was not possible to have a unified draft resolution on this issue. The substantive work that was done during the last year, especially within the United Nations Disarmament The debate on the draft resolution on the biological weapons Convention was mainly focused on the recent Special Conference. The establishment of a working group to consider appropriate measures, including possible verification measures, and draft proposals to strengthen the Convention in a legally binding instrument had a positive influence on the debate and enabled the Committee to adopt the relevant draft resolution without a vote. The Committee furthermore adopted a draft resolution on the convening of the fourth special session devoted to disarmament. The fact that it was adopted without a vote is proof of the need for a renewed focus on disarmament and international security issues. I turn now to the First Committee’s work related to agenda item 67 “Question of Antarctica”. It should be noted with satisfaction that for the first time the relevant draft resolution was adopted without a vote. The statements made during the debate on this issue show the shared conviction that for the benefit of mankind Antarctica must be preserved as a zone of peace, where the environment is protected and freedom of scientific research exists. Under the draft resolution the Assembly would welcome the provision by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to the Secretary-General of the final report of the Eighteenth Consultative Meeting. It would also encourage close cooperation between the Antarctic Treaty Parties and the United Nations Environment Programme. Let me now briefly turn to a few errors of a technical nature which have crept into the texts of the following reports: In document A/49/692, part III, “Recommendation of the First Committee”, operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution should begin with the words “Also invites”. In document A/49/700, part III, “Recommendation of the First Committee”, the text of draft resolution C, “Regional confidence-building measures”, should be corrected as follows: operative paragraph 4 should begin “Takes note of”; operative paragraph 8 should begin “Also requests”; and operative paragraph 9 should begin “Further requests”. In document A/49/704, part III, “Recommendation of the First Committee”, operative paragraph 1 of the draft I would ask delegations to take note of those technical corrections. Before concluding, I should like to pay a well- deserved tribute to all the delegations that participated in the work of the Committee for their spirit of cooperation in the common search for a better, safer and more stable world. I should like to make special mention of the Chairman of the Committee, His Excellency Ambassador Luis Valencia-Rodriguez, who, with his intimate knowledge of disarmament and international security matters as well as his general diplomatic skills provided the Committee with vision and able leadership. Let me also thank the Committee’s Vice-Chairmen, Mr. Thomas Stelzer and Ambassador Yoshitomo Tanaka, who were most effective in discharging their duties. I should also like to express my appreciation to the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Mr. Marrack Goulding, for his valuable contribution, and to the Acting Director of the Centre for Disarmament Affairs, Mr. Prvoslav Davinic. In that connection, special thanks go to the Secretary of the First Committee, Mr. Sohrab Kheradi, whose vast experience and high degree of competence made a significant contribution to the successful outcome of the Committee’s work. I should also like to express my gratitude to Mr. Kheradi’s staff, including Mr. Mohammad Sattar, Mr. Timur Alasaniya, Mr. Francesco Cottafavi, Mrs. Ruby Kulanusorstit and Mrs. Anna Nania.
The President [French] #15686
If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the First Committee that are before it today.
It was so decided.
The President #15687
Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote or position. May I remind members that under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401 the Assembly agreed that “When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, i.e., either in the Committee or in plenary meeting unless that delegation’s vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee.” May I also remind delegations that, also 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. Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we shall proceed to take decisions in the same manner as in the Committee, except in those cases where delegations have already notified the Secretariat that they wish to do otherwise. This means that where recorded or separate votes were taken, we shall do the same. I also hope that we can proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted in the First Committee without a vote.

53.  Reduction of military budgets: report of the First Committee (A/49/690) Review of the implementation of the recommendations and decisions adopted by the General Assembly at its tenth special session (f) Implementation of the guidelines and recommendations for objective information on military matters: report of the First Committee (A/49/690)

The President [French] #15688
The Assembly will now take action on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 10 of its report.
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 49/66).
The President [French] #15689
May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 53?
It was so decided.
The President [French] #15690
The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (f) of item 64.

54.  Scientific and technological developments and their impact on international security: report of the First Committee (A/49/691)

The President [French] #15691
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 118 votes to 4, with 47 abstentions (resolution A/49/67).
Vote: 31/37 Consensus
The President [French] #15692
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 54?
It was so decided.

55.  The role of science and technology in the context of international security, disarmament and other related fields: report of the First Committee (A/49/692)

The President [French] #15693
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. Separate votes have been requested on the seventh and the eighth preambular paragraphs and on operative paragraph 3. I shall first put to the vote the seventh preambular paragraph of the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The President [French] #15694
I shall now put to the vote the eighth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Against: Iran (Islamic Republic of) Abstaining: Algeria, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, Mexico, Panama, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America
The eighth preambular paragraph was adopted by 156 votes to 1, with 11 abstentions.
The President [French] #15695
I shall next put to the vote operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Vote: 57/69 Consensus
Operative paragraph 3 was adopted by 155 votes to 1, with 13 abstentions.
The President [French] #15696
I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution as a whole recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.
Vote: 57/70 Consensus
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution as a whole was adopted by 166 votes to none, with 5 abstentions (resolution 49/68).
It was so decided.

56.  Amendment of the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and under Water: report of the First Committee (A/49/693)

The President [French] #15697
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 116 votes to 4, with 49 abstentions (resolution 49/69).
The President [French] #15698
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 56?
It was so decided.

57.  Comprehensive test-ban treaty: report of the First Committee (A/49/694)

The President [French] #15699
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 9 of its report. The draft resolution entitled “Comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty” was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 49/70).
The President [French] #15700
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 57?
It was so decided.

Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East: report of the First Committee (A/49/695)

The President [French] #15701
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 10 of its report. The draft resolution was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 49/71).
The President [French] #15702
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 58?
It was so decided.

59.  Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia: report of the First Committee (A/49/696)

The President [French] #15703
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 156 votes to 3, with 10 abstentions (resolution 49/72).
The President [French] #15704
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 59?
It was so decided.

60.  Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons: report of the First Committee (A/49/697)

The President [French] #15705
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report.
A recorded vote was taken.
The President [French] #15706
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 60?
It was so decided.

61.  Prevention of an arms race in outer space: report of the First Committee (A/49/698)

The President [French] #15707
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. Separate recorded votes have been requested on the eighteenth preambular paragraph and on paragraphs 8 and 10. Is there any objection to that request? As there is no objection, I shall put to the vote first the eighteenth preambular paragraph.
A recorded vote was taken.
The President [French] #15708
I shall now put to the vote paragraph 8.
A recorded vote was taken.
Paragraph 8 was adopted by 129 votes to 1, with 38 abstentions.
The President [French] #15709
I shall next put to the vote operative paragraph 10.
A recorded vote was taken.
The President [French] #15710
I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution, as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The President [French] #15711
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 61?
It was so decided.
The President [French] #15712
I call on the representative of France, on a point of order.
Mr. Ladsous FRA France [French] #15713
This year some delegations in the Assembly chose to submit in the First Committee draft resolution A/C.1/49/L.36, entitled “Request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons”. This draft resolution was submitted for consideration despite the fact that the Assembly of the World Health Organization had adopted a similar resolution in 1993. The International Court of Justice is at this very time considering that request by the Assembly of the World Health Organization for an advisory opinion, as well as the memorials already transmitted by more than 27 States. On a number of occasions my delegation has drawn attention to what we believe to be the inappropriate, superfluous and ill-founded submission in this body of another request for an advisory opinion. At the time of the voting on the draft resolution in the First Committee, France commented at length on the underlying motives of the sponsors of the text, and I will not go over that again. However, the draft resolution that is now before us - although the Court has not yet replied to the first request -is once again aimed at obtaining an urgent response on a matter that, as all of us in the Assembly are aware, is purely political and has been the subject of numerous controversies. This situation is particularly regrettable in the light of the fact that the authority of the decisions of the tribunal in The Hague, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, is based on its handing down decisions founded on law and taking care not to make political judgements. This state of affairs is well known to all delegations, including the sponsors of the draft resolution. However, on the eve of the 1995 extension Conference, there is a desire to put in the dock the nuclear Powers recognized by that instrument of international law known as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed by more than 160 countries; and this is done at the very time when it is clear that those nuclear Powers are fully shouldering their responsibility and remaining faithful to their commitments. This desire to accuse the nuclear Powers seems to outweigh Those who wish to use for partisan purposes an institution as respected as the International Court of Justice are indeed assuming a serious responsibility — and I insist on the word “serious”, for, by attempting to bring hitherto unwitnessed pressure to bear in order to divert that jurisdiction from its exclusive mission, the sponsors of draft resolution K will do serious and lasting damage to the credit of the International Court of Justice and to its image as an impartial body. For those reasons, therefore, my delegation, regretfully, is forced, in accordance with rule 74 of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure, to move the adjournment of draft resolution K in paragraph 60 of the First Committee’s report (A/49/699). My delegation would also move that a recorded vote be taken on this motion. For its part, France hopes that the largest possible number of delegations, aware of the responsibility incumbent upon them, will vote in favour of this motion for non-action.
The President [French] #15714
The representative of France has moved, in accordance with rule 74 of the Assembly’s rules of procedure, that no decision be taken on draft resolution K in paragraph 60 of document A/49/699. Rule 74 reads as follows: “During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. ...” I shall now call upon two delegations wishing to speak in favour of the motion.
Mr. Rudolph DEU Germany #15715
With respect to draft resolution K in paragraph 60 of the First Committee’s report (A/49/699), by which the General Assembly would request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, I associate myself with the representative of France and wish to support the proposal to move that no action be taken on the draft resolution within the terms of rule 74 of the Assembly’s rules of procedure. Progress with the request of the Assembly of the World Health Organization is such that the International Court of Justice is now examining submissions made to it by at least 27 States. Any further initiative in the General Assembly to put a similar question to the Court could be viewed as an attempt to prejudice the view of the Court on the request of the Assembly of the World Health Organization. A resolution at the United Nations would do nothing to help the ongoing consideration of the question by the International Court of Justice and might adversely affect both the standing of the General Assembly and that of the Court itself. It could also have wider adverse implications for non-proliferation goals which we all share.
Mr. Gajda HUN Hungary #15716
Under rule 74 of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure, the Hungarian delegation wishes to make the following statement: Draft resolution K, which is recommended to the Assembly in paragraph 60 of the First Committee’s report (A/49/699), is a political step in legal guise that is clearly aimed at disturbing and upsetting the modus operandi of the International Court of Justice. This premeditated attempt seeks to bring massive political pressure to bear upon the Court in order to influence its opinion on an issue already before it, and its consequences can only bring discredit upon that body, the highest forum of international law. In addition, the draft resolution in question is not in any manner designed to promote ongoing efforts and negotiations concerning nuclear-arms control and disarmament matters or to sustain and reinforce the legal value and credibility of extremely important international treaties already in force. Finally, the draft resolution is meant to distract attention from the imminent problems of the unbridled The Hungarian delegation, therefore, fully supports the motion made by the representative of France and invites and urges all other delegations to do the same.
The President [French] #15717
We have just heard two speakers in support of the motion made by France. I now call upon those representatives who wish to speak against the motion.
Mr. Razali MYS Malaysia #15718
Malaysia opposes the motion for no action on the draft resolution before us. We believe that our meeting today must endorse the decision taken in the First Committee, namely, to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. This draft resolution is clearly one of the most keenly debated resolutions of this session. It is abundantly clear that the nuclear-weapon States, their supporters and private business which supports the nuclear-arms industry are totally opposed to the draft resolution. The utilization of a non-action motion is a desperate and obstructionist device. It is obvious that the draft resolution enjoys substantial support, both within and outside the General Assembly. There has been a strong outpouring of support from a wide spectrum of the international community, including support from the grass roots of society in a number of the nuclear-weapon States themselves. Indeed, the peoples of the world are clearly opposed to nuclear weapons. Let me make the following specific comments. First, the case brought by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the draft resolution before us, while similar, are not the same. The case considered by WHO asks only about the use of nuclear weapons in war time. The draft resolution before us, which was approved by the First Committee, relates to the threat or use of nuclear weapons under any circumstance. Secondly, the request is being made by the General Assembly, which is the Charter body responsible for disarmament and security issues. Thirdly, the draft resolution before us cannot be considered sub judice, as it requests an opinion from the International Court of Justice. We also cannot ignore the fact that some of the countries opposed to this draft resolution continue to challenge the competence of the Court regarding the initiative taken by the WHO.
Mr. Wiranataatmadja IDN Indonesia on behalf of my delegation #15719
Like others who have spoken before me, I wish, on behalf of my delegation, to say that we appreciate the motion for no action on the draft resolution, as proposed by the delegation of France. However, it a matter of principle for non-aligned countries to uphold the decisions of the Ministerial Meetings which took place in Cairo in June 1994 and in New York on 5 October 1994. In this connection, in view of the need to carry out the decision made by the Ministerial Meetings of the Non-Aligned Movement, I should like to appeal to all countries members of the Movement to oppose this motion for no action.
The President [French] #15720
I shall now put to the vote the motion submitted by the representative of France that no action be taken on draft resolution K. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Vanuatu Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Gambia, Abstaining: Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Chile, Croatia, Dominica, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Ireland, Jamaica, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, New Zealand, Niger, Peru, Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Sweden, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
The motion was rejected by 68 votes to 58, with 26 abstentions.
The President [French] #15721
As the motion for no action is not adopted, the Assembly will now proceed to take a decision on draft resolution K. I call on the representative of France on a point of order.
Mr. Ladsous FRA France [French] #15722
My delegation regrets that the motion for no action on draft resolution K has not been adopted as we had hoped. Nevertheless, given the votes that were cast, we cannot but note that there is a profound division within the Assembly on the appropriateness of this draft resolution. I have already strongly emphasized the French delegation’s concern that the International Court of Justice not be put in the situation of being pressured by a specific group. This desire therefore prompts my delegation to propose to the Assembly an amendment to draft resolution K. This amendment would delete from the request to the International Court of Justice in the operative paragraph of the draft resolution the word “urgently”. Furthermore, my delegation would like this amendment, which would ensure the freedom of a juridical body to make its own assessment, to be submitted to a recorded vote. I call on the representative of Indonesia on a point of order.
Mr. Wiranataatmadja IDN Indonesia #15723
For the reasons I described earlier, my delegation wishes to make a motion for no action on the amendment proposed by France. This is for the simple reason that a decision has been made at two Ministerial Meetings of the Non-Aligned Movement. If, for example, a country intends to come up with compromise language in good faith, this should be done prior to the action we are taking now.
Mr. Razali MYS Malaysia #15724
The Malaysian delegation fully supports the motion made by the delegation of Indonesia. We totally oppose this attempt to amend the draft resolution before us. We would appeal to all members of the General Assembly to take into account the fact that the First Committee has pronounced itself on this draft resolution and that an attempt just now to make a motion for no action was defeated. We would now urge that no further devices be allowed to prevent the adoption of this draft resolution.
The President [French] #15725
The representative of Indonesia, seconded by the representative of Malaysia, has moved, within the terms of rule 74 of the rules of procedure, that no action be taken on the oral amendment submitted by the representative of France. Rule 74 reads as follows: “During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote.” I now call on the two representatives who wish to speak against the motion.
Mr. Ladsous FRA France [French] #15726
My delegation notes with regret the wish expressed by the delegation which submitted draft resolution K that no in-depth consideration be given to the amendment submitted by France. This confirms both that there are those who fear that the Assembly will opt for a reasonable attitude and In these circumstances, my delegation can only oppose the motion for no action that has been made and we hope that a recorded vote can be taken to that effect. My delegation takes this opportunity to appeal to delegations that have so far supported us to oppose the motion when it is put to the vote.
Mr. Gelber USA United States of America #15727
The United States delegation will oppose the proposed motion for no action on the French amendment. We believe that the French amendment will at least temper an inappropriate use of the International Court of Justice, a respected legal institution, for what can only be seen as political purposes. The removal of the word "urgently" from the draft resolution would shield the Court’s calendar from unnecessary political pressure and chaos.
Mr. Moradi IRN Islamic Republic of Iran #15728
I am speaking to support the motion for no action proposed by the representative of Indonesia on the amendment proposed by France. First, we think that members of the international community should be able to explore every avenue to establish a world free from the threat, use or deployment of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Secondly, the sponsors of draft resolutions before the Assembly have submitted them in exercise of their inalienable right under the Charter of the United Nations encouraging States to seek advisory opinions on issues whenever they deem necessary. The Charter does not exclude recourse to an advisory opinion on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Thirdly, this issue, namely to seek an advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons has been considered seriously at the highest level among the members of the Non-Aligned Movement, which represent the will of the overwhelming majority of the international community. Therefore, we support the motion for no action proposed by Indonesia, and we urge other Member States to support it by casting a positive vote.
The President [French] #15729
We have just heard two speakers in favour of the motion and two against. A recorded vote has been requested on this motion.
A recorded vote was taken.
The motion was adopted by 61 votes to 56, with 30 abstentions.
Mr. Zlenko UKR Ukraine #15730
I would like to thank the Rapporteur of the First Committee, who mentioned my country in connection with its accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The recent accession of Ukraine to the NPT represents a decisive contribution to the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime on the eve of the 1995 NPT review and extension Conference. This historic step has opened up a new era and has given great impetus to the process of nuclear disarmament. It eliminated the last obstacle in the way of implementing START I and opened up opportunities for the prompt ratification of START II. It reaffirms the fact that Ukraine continues to be a responsible member of the international community and a reliable international partner. This decision was taken by the Ukrainian leadership in the midst of a complex economic and political situation in Ukraine. Its implementation will require additional expenditure and economic sacrifices on the part of the Ukrainian people. In taking this historic decision, the Parliament of Ukraine was counting on an appropriate response from the world community to our State’s voluntary renunciation of nuclear weapons. This is something that had never been done before in the history of mankind. With regard to disarmament issues, the delegation of Ukraine is aware of the great responsibility borne by every Member State, in terms of the preservation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and nuclear disarmament.
Mr. Zaki MDV Maldives #15731
My explanation of vote refers to draft resolution K, entitled “Request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons”, in document A/49/699. That is why Maldives supported in the First Committee the draft resolution now before us entitled “Request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons”. However, owing to the lack of consensus concerning the procedure of asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an opinion at this time, and being aware in particular that the ICJ is engaged in the consideration of a similar subject, considered by some Members as identical, my delegation now feels that the General Assembly may prudently defer taking a decision on this draft resolution this year. Therefore, my delegation will abstain in the vote on draft resolution K.
Mr. Rudolph DEU Germany on behalf of European Union and the acceding States #15732
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and the acceding States, Austria, Finland and Sweden. We strongly welcomed the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapon State on 5 December 1994. We acknowledge the speedy implementation of Ukraine’s commitment to become a State free of nuclear weapons. We are convinced that this important step will prepare the path for the full implementation of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) treaties, and the continuation of the nuclear disarmament process. We call upon Ukraine to conclude as soon as possible a full-scope safeguards agreement with the International
The President [French] #15733
I shall now put the 16 draft resolutions and the draft decision to the Assembly one by one. Once all the decisions have been taken, representatives will again have the opportunity to explain their votes. We shall first turn to draft resolution A, entitled “Prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes”. The First Committee adopted draft resolution A without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
Draft resolution A was adopted (resolution 49/75 A).
The President [French] #15734
Draft resolution B is entitled “Review of the Declaration of the 1990s as the Third Disarmament Decade”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Against: France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Albania, Argentina, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Georgia, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine
Draft resolution B was adopted by 139 votes to three, with 26 abstentions (resolution 49/75 B).
The President [French] #15735
Draft resolution C is entitled “Transparency in armaments”. Separate, recorded votes have been requested on operative paragraphs 4 (b) and 6. Is there any objection to this request? Since that is not the case, I first put to the vote operative paragraph 4 (b).
A recorded vote was taken.
Operative paragraph 4 (b) was adopted by 145 votes to none, with 17 abstentions.
The President [French] #15736
I now put to the vote operative paragraph 6.
A recorded vote was taken.
Operative paragraph 6 was adopted by 145 votes to 4, with 11 abstentions.
The President [French] #15737
I shall now put to the vote draft resolution C, as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution C, as a whole, was adopted by 150 votes to none, with 19 abstentions (resolution 49/75 C).
The President [French] #15738
Draft resolution D is entitled "Moratorium on the export of anti- personnel land-mines".
Draft resolution D was adopted (resolution 49/75 D).
The President [French] #15739
Draft resolution E is entitled "Step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat". A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution E was adopted by 111 votes to 24, with 33 abstentions (resolution 49/75 E).
The President [French] #15740
I shall now put to the vote draft resolution F, entitled “1995 Review and Extension Conference of States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution F was adopted by 103 votes to 40, with 25 abstentions (resolution 49/75 F).
The President [French] #15741
Draft resolution G is entitled “Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them”. A recorded vote has been requested. I call on the representative of Mali on a point of order.
Mr. Samassekou MLI Mali [French] #15742
My delegation had wished to speak before the voting process began. But I wish to say that the sponsors of draft resolution G are surprised that this draft resolution, which was adopted in the Committee by consensus, is being put to the vote. My delegation would like an explanation.
The President [French] #15743
The explanation is that one delegation requested a recorded vote on the draft resolution.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution G was adopted by 169 votes to none, with 1 abstention (resolution 49/75 G).
The President [French] #15744
Draft resolution H is entitled “Nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons”. A recorded vote has been requested. The First Committee adopted draft resolution I without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution H was adopted by 163 votes to none, with 8 abstentions (resolution 49/75 H)
Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 49/75 I).
The President [French] #15745
Draft resolution J is entitled “Relationship between disarmament and development”. The First Committee adopted draft resolution J without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
Draft resolution J was adopted (resolution 49/75 J).
The President [French] #15746
Draft resolution K is entitled “Request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution K was adopted by 78 votes to 43, with 38 abstentions (resolution 49/75 K).
The President [French] #15747
Draft resolution L is entitled “Bilateral nuclear-arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament”. The First Committee adopted draft resolution L without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution L was adopted (resolution 49/75 L).
The President [French] #15748
Draft resolution M is entitled “Measures to curb the illicit transfer and use of conventional arms”. Draft resolution M was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly too wishes to adopt the draft resolution?
Draft resolution M was adopted (resolution 49/75 M).
The President [French] #15749
Draft resolution N is entitled “Regional disarmament”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The President [French] #15750
Draft resolution O is entitled “Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution O was adopted by 164 votes to none, with 7 abstentions (resolution 49/75 O).
The President [French] #15751
Draft resolution P is entitled “Bilateral nuclear-arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution P was adopted by 171 votes to none, with 1 abstention (resolution 49/75 P).
The President [French] #15752
The Assembly turns now to the draft decision recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 61 of its report (A/49/699). The draft decision is entitled “Non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of vehicles for their delivery in all its aspects”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft decision was adopted by 123 votes to 1, with 45 abstentions.
The President [French] #15753
I call now on representatives wishing to speak in explanation of vote after the voting.
Mr. Ryberg SWE Sweden #15754
I wish to explain the vote of my delegation on draft resolution K. It is a well known fact that for decades Sweden has worked actively and consistently for nuclear disarmament and for an ultimate total ban on nuclear weapons. However, Sweden abstained in the vote on draft resolution K. It is the view of the Swedish Government that, taking into account the recent request made to the International Court of Justice by the World Health Organization on this topic, one further request to the Court would probably cause an unfortunate delay in the ongoing work of the Court on the issue of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, if the General Assembly decides to request the Court to render an advisory opinion on the question set out in the draft resolution, it is important that the Court give its opinion without unnecessary delay. Hence Sweden was against the deletion of the word The Swedish Government is of the opinion that the use of nuclear weapons would not be in compliance with international law and is anxious that the legal situation be clarified by the Court as soon as possible. In this context, the Swedish Government would like to recall that last June Sweden, in connection with the request from the World Health Organization, officially stated to the International Court of Justice that the use of nuclear arms would not be in accordance with international law. This reply was based on a report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Swedish Parliament, approved by Parliament last June. The Parliament stated, inter alia, that ever since the turn of the century there has existed in international law a principle under which belligerents do not have an unrestricted right to choose weapons or methods of combat. In the Parliament’s opinion, the use of nuclear weapons would be restricted by the principles of distinction and proportionality under customary international law, as they relate in particular to civilian populations and property, and by other general fundamental legal principles recognized by civilized nations. The Parliament, in its report, notes further that the principle of proportionality is embodied in the law of the Charter of the United Nations. Reprisals that are disproportionate by comparison with the provocation that preceded them are prohibited. It would be difficult to regard this principle as consistent with the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation against an attack using conventional weapons.
The President [French] #15755
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 62?
It was so decided.
The President [French] #15756
The Assembly has before it five draft resolutions recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 17 of its report. We turn first to draft resolution A entitled “United Nations Disarmament Information Programme”. The First Committee adopted draft resolution A without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution A was adopted (resolution 49/76 A).
The President [French] #15757
Draft resolution B is entitled “United Nations disarmament fellowship training and advisory services programme”. The First Committee adopted draft resolution B without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
Draft resolution B was adopted (resolution 49/76 B).
The President [French] #15758
Draft resolution C is entitled “Regional confidence-building measures”. The draft resolution was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution C was adopted (resolution 49/76 C).
The President [French] #15759
Draft resolution D is entitled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific and United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean”. The First Committee adopted draft resolution D without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
Draft resolution D was adopted (resolution 49/76 D).
The President [French] #15760
Draft resolution E is entitled “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”.
A recorded vote was taken.
The President [French] #15761
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 63?
It was so decided.
The President [French] #15762
The Assembly will now take decisions on the four draft resolutions recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 21 of its report. We shall first consider draft resolution A, entitled “Report of the Disarmament Commission”. The First Committee adopted draft resolution A without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
Draft resolution A was adopted (resolution 49/77 A).
The President [French] #15763
Draft resolution B is entitled “Expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament”. The First Committee adopted draft resolution B without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
Draft resolution B was adopted (resolution 49/77 B).
The President [French] #15764
Draft resolution C is entitled “Report of the Conference on Disarmament”. The First Committee adopted draft resolution C without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? A recorded vote has been requested.
Draft resolution C was adopted (resolution 49/77 C).
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution D was adopted by 158 votes to none, with 11 abstentions (resolution 49/77 D).
The President [French] #15765
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 64 as a whole?
It was so decided.

65.  Israeli nuclear armament: report of the First Committee (A/49/702)

The President [French] #15766
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. I call on the representative of Botswana for an explanation of vote before the voting.
Mr. Boang BWA Botswana #15767
Although my delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution contained in document A/C.1/49/L.11/Rev.1 and in paragraph 8 of document A/49/702, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, we are compelled to doubt the fairness of operative paragraph 1. We would have wished that the paragraph mention by name, if such name-calling was considered necessary, all the States suspected of developing, producing, testing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons.
The President [French] #15768
I now put to the vote the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. It is entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 60 votes to 4, with 100 abstentions (resolution 49/78).
The President [French] #15769
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 65?

66.  Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have

The President [French] #15770
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. The Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 49/79).
The President [French] #15771
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 66?
It was so decided.

67.  Question of Antarctica: report of the First Committee (A/49/704)

The President [French] #15772
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. The First Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 49/80).
The President [French] #15773
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 67?
It was so decided.

68.  Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region: report of the First Committee (A/49/705)

The President [French] #15774
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 9 of its report.
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 49/81).
The President [French] #15775
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 68?
It was so decided.

69.  Implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace: report of the First Committee (A/49/706)

The President [French] #15776
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 131 votes to 3, with 35 abstentions (resolution 49/82).
The President [French] #15777
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 69?
It was so decided.

70.  Maintenance of international security: report of the First Committee (A/49/707)

The President [French] #15778
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft decision recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. The draft decision was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft decision was adopted.
The President [French] #15779
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 70?

71.  Consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco): report of the First Committee (A/49/708)

The President [French] #15780
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 9 of its report. The draft resolution was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 49/83).
The President [French] #15781
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 71?
It was so decided.
The President [French] #15782
The Assembly has before it two draft resolutions, draft resolution I and draft resolution II, recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 11 of its report. In order to allow review of the programme budget implications of draft resolution I, “Establishment of an African nuclear-weapon- free zone,” consideration of the draft resolution is postponed to next week. The Assembly will take a decision on draft resolution II, “The South Atlantic region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution II was adopted by 161 votes to 3, with 3 abstentions (resolution 49/84).
The President [French] #15783
The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 72. Rationalization of the work and reform of the agenda of the First Committee: report of the First Committee (A/49/710)
The President [French] #15784
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 9 of its report. The draft resolution was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 49/85).
The President [French] #15785
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 73?
It was so decided.

153.  Chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons: report of the First Committee (A/49/711)

The President [French] #15786
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. The draft resolution, entitled “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction”, was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 49/86).
The President [French] #15787
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 153?
It was so decided.
The President [French] #15788
I wish to welcome the signing by Ukraine of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I believe that this signature opens a new and historic era in the process of the elimination of nuclear weapons. I wish to congratulate Ukraine’s leaders for this courageous act.
The meeting rose at 7.20 p.m.