E-mail: icbl@icbl.orgUN Press Release
GA/DIS/3128
_________________________________________________________________
DRAFT RESOLUTION ON NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
APPROVED BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE
19981104
_________________________________________________________________
__Texts Also Approved on Nuclear Disarmament, Ottawa Convention,
Objective Information on Military Matters
The General Assembly would call upon States parties and
signatories to
all existing nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties to pursue
the common
goals those envisaged and to promote the nuclear-weapon-free
status of
the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, according
to one of four
disarmament and security-related draft resolutions approved
this
morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International
Security).
By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would welcome
the steps
taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties
on the
basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States
of the region
concerned and call upon all States to consider all relevant
proposals,
including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment
of
nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South
Asia. The draft
was approved by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 4
against (France,
Monaco, United Kingdom, United Kingdom, United States),
with 14
abstentions. (For details of the vote see Annex III.)
Prior to approval of the draft, the Committee held two
separate votes.
At the request of the representative of Pakistan, it voted
on the
words "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3. It approved
retaining
the words by a vote of 118 in favour to 2 against (Bhutan,
India),
with 21 abstentions (Annex I).
By a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against (India),
with 18
abstentions, the Committee also retained operative paragraph
3 as a
whole, which calls upon States to consider all relevant
proposals for
the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, including
in the
Middle East and South Asia (Annex II).
A second nuclear disarmament text approved today would
have the
Assembly urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately
the
qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling
of
nuclear warheads and their delivery systems and, as interim
measures,
to immediately de-alert and
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd
Meeting (AM) 4
November 1998
deactivate their nuclear weapons. The text was approved
by a recorded
vote of 87 in favour to 40 against, with 15 abstentions
(Annex IV).
In the conventional weapons category, the Committee approved
a draft
text on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling,
Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on
Their
Destruction (Ottawa Convention), by a recorded vote of
124 in favour
to none against, with 19 abstentions (Annex V).
By the terms of that text, the Assembly would invite all
States that
had not yet done so to adhere to the Convention and urge
all States
that had not yet done so to ratify it without delay, subsequent
to
their signature. It would renew its call upon all States
to contribute
towards the full realization and effective implementation
of the
Convention to advance the care and rehabilitation and
the social and
economic reintegration of mine victims, mine awareness
programmes, and
the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed
throughout
the world.
According to a draft approved without a vote, the Assembly
would
recommend the guidelines and recommendations for objective
information
on military matters to all Member States for implementation,
and call
upon them to report annually, by 30 April, to the Secretary-General,
their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year
for which data
were available. It would also call upon them to provide
him with
suggestions to strengthen and broaden participation in
the United
Nations system for the standardized reporting of military
expenditures, including necessary changes to its content
and
structure.
Statements were made by the representatives of Syria,
United States,
France, China, India, Japan, Chile, Lebanon, Finland,
Egypt,
Singapore, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Turkey, Cuba, Iran,
Algeria,
Myanmar and Oman.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 5 November,
to
continue taking action on disarmament and security-related
draft
resolutions.
_________________________________________________________________
Committee Work Programme
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security)
met this
morning to continue taking action on disarmament and security-related
draft resolutions. It had before it draft texts on the
prohibition of
anti- personnel mines, objective information on military
matters, a
nuclear-weapon- free southern hemisphere and nuclear disarmament.
By the terms of a draft resolution on objective information
on
military matters, including transparency of military expenditures
(document A/C.1/53/L.30), the Assembly would recommend
the guidelines
and recommendations for objective information on military
matters to
all Member States for implementation, fully taking into
account
specific political, military and other regional conditions,
on the
basis of initiatives and with the agreement of the States
of the
region concerned, and call upon them to report annually,
by 30 April,
to the Secretary-General, their military expenditures
for the latest
fiscal year for which data were available.
The Assembly would also call upon Member States to provide
the
Secretary-General with their views on the analysis and
recommendations
contained in his report of 4 August (document A/53/218)
and with
further suggestions to strengthen and broaden participation
in the
United Nations system for the standardized reporting of
military
expenditures, including necessary changes to its content
and
structure.
The Assembly would request the Secretary-General to send
an annual
note verbale to Member States requesting the submission
of such data,
and timely publish the due date for transmitting such
data in
appropriate United Nations media. The Assembly would also
request him
to consult with relevant international bodies with a view
to
encouraging wider participation, and ask him to recommend
changes to
the reporting system that would strengthen and broaden
participation
in a report to the Assembly at its fifty-fourth session.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia,
Austria,
Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica,
Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France,
Germany,
Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New
Zealand,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania,
Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia,
Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.
According to a text on the Convention on the Prohibition
of the Use,
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel
Mines and on
Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/53/L.33),
the
Assembly would invite all States that had not yet done
so to adhere to
the Convention and urge all States that had not yet done
so to ratify
the Convention without delay, subsequent to their signature.
It would
renew its call upon all States to contribute towards the
full
realization and effective implementation of the
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting
(AM) 4
November 1998
Convention to advance the care and rehabilitation and
the social and
economic reintegration of mine victims, mine awareness
programmes, and
the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed
throughout
the world.
The text would further have the Assembly welcome the generous
offer of
the Government of Mozambique to host the first meeting
of the States
parties, and invite all States parties and non-States
parties, as well
as the United Nations, other relevant international organizations
or
institutions, regional organizations, the International
Committee of
the Red Cross and relevant non-governmental organizations
to attend
that meeting as observers. It would request the Secretary-General
to
undertake the necessary preparations for its convening
during the week
of 3 May 1999.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Angola,
Antigua and
Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados,
Belgium,
Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana,
Brazil,
Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Canada,
Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia,
Congo,
Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador,
El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France,
Gambia,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Jamaica,
Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Madagascar,
Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands,
New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova,
Saint Kitts
and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and
Principe,
Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon
Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Surinam, Swaziland,
Sweden,
Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo,
Trinidad
and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom,
Uruguay,
Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
A text on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document
A/C.1/53/L.37) would have the Assembly call upon the States
parties
and signatories to the 1967 Treaty for the Prohibition
of Nuclear
Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of
Tlatelolco),
South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga),
Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Bangkok
Treaty) and
Africa Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba),
in order
to pursue the common goals those envisaged and to promote
the
nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere
and adjacent
areas, to explore and implement further means of cooperation
among
themselves and their treaty agencies.
The Assembly would also call for the ratification of those
treaties by
all regional States and for all concerned States to facilitate
adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free zone
treaties by all
relevant States that had not yet done so.
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting
(AM) 4
November 1998
The Assembly would welcome the steps taken to conclude
further
nuclear- weapon-free zone treaties on the basis of arrangements
freely
arrived at among the States of the region concerned and
call upon all
States to consider all relevant proposals, including those
reflected
in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free
zones
in the Middle East and South Asia. It would reiterate
the important
role of nuclear-weapon-free zones in strengthening the
nuclear
non-proliferation regime and in extending the nuclear-weapon-free
areas of the world.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Antigua and
Barbuda,
Argentina, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Botswana,
Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cape Verde, Central African
Republic,
Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire,
Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt,
El
Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana,
Haiti,
Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho,
Liberia,
Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia,
New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, Singapore,
Solomon
Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, United
Republic of
Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
By the terms of a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament
(document
A/C.1/53/L.47), the Assembly would urge the nuclear-weapon
States to
stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development,
production
and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery
systems and, as
interim measures, to immediately de-alert and deactivate
their nuclear
weapons. It would call on those States, pending a total
ban on nuclear
weapons through a nuclear weapons convention, to agree
on an
internationally and legally binding instrument not to
be the first to
use those weapons.
The Assembly would reiterate its call to the nuclear-weapon
States to
undertake the step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat
and to
carry out effective nuclear disarmament measures with
a view to the
total elimination of those weapons within a specified
timeframe. It
would call for the conclusion, as a first step, of a universal
and
legally binding multilateral agreement committing all
States to the
objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons,
and for the
convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament
at an
early date.
By further terms, it would reiterate its call upon the
Conference on
Disarmament to establish, on a priority basis, an ad hoc
committee on
nuclear disarmament to commence negotiations early in
1999, aimed at
concluding a nuclear weapons convention. It would welcome
the
establishment in the Conference of an ad hoc committee
to ban the
production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and
urge the
speedy conclusion of a universal and non-discriminatory
convention in
that regard. It would also welcome the establishment of
an ad hoc
committee to negotiate negative security assurances for
non-nuclear-weapon States and urge the pursuit of those
efforts on a
priority basis.
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting
(AM) 4
November 1998
The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Angola,
Bangladesh,
Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Bhutan, Burundi, Cape
Verde,
Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El
Salvador,
Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia,
Iran,
Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Lesotho,
Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique,
Myanmar,
Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama,
Papua New
Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka,
Sudan,
Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela,
Viet Nam,
Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Action on texts
The Committee began with a discussion on how the postponement
of
action on draft texts previously scheduled to be addressed
was
affecting the work of the Committee and the preparation
of the
delegates.
The representative of the Marshall Islands then announced
that she had
intended to abstain in yesterday's vote on the draft resolution
on a
nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/53/L.14).
The Committee took up the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free
southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/53/L.37).
The representative of Pakistan requested a separate vote
on the words
"and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3 of the draft,
which concerns
the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones.
Following a procedural discussion on the appropriateness
of such a
vote, the Committee CHAIRMAN decided that the vote would
proceed and
explained that a negative vote would call for the deletion
of the
words, while a positive vote would call for their retention.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative
of
Pakistan said his country had supported the idea of creating
a
nuclear-weapon- free zone in South Asia for almost 25
years.
Unfortunately, it did not receive the kind of support
it had wished
from the international community and from some of the
regional States.
Following the nuclear tests and the declaration of a nuclear-weapon
status by one of the regional States, his Government believed
that the
goal of a nuclear-free South Asia was no longer realistic.
The words
in the text had become redundant and he would abstain
in the vote.
The words "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3 of
the draft
resolution were retained by a recorded vote of 118 votes
in favour to
2 against (Bhutan, India), with 21 abstentions. (For details
of the
vote, see Annex I.)
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting
(AM) 4
November 1998
The Committee then retained operative paragraph 3 by a
recorded vote
of 125 in favour to 1 against (India), with 18 abstentions
(Annex II).
In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative
of Pakistan
said his delegation had abstained in the vote on the entire
paragraph,
because of the result of the earlier vote on the three
words.
Practically all the regional States had abstained and
the retention of
those words contradicted the established principle that
the creation
of any such zone should be based on arrangements freely
arrived at by
all the regional States.
The representative of Syria pointed out that the Arabic
version of the
draft resolution had a preambular paragraph omitting very
important
words relating to the freedom of the high seas. He would
like the
Secretariat to insert those words
The representative of the United States, speaking in explanation
of
vote, said he had abstained in the vote on the words "and
South Asia"
in operative paragraph 3 because the representative of
Pakistan had
raised a major issue, namely whether the States of the
region wanted a
nuclear-weapon- free zone on the basis of arrangements
freely arrived
at among States. It appeared that Pakistan did not. Since
those words
remained in operative paragraph 3, similarly, he had abstained
in the
vote on that paragraph.
The Committee then approved the draft resolution as a
whole on a
nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/53/L.37)
by a
recorded vote of 129 in favour to 4 against (France, Monaco,
United
Kingdom, United States), with 14 abstentions (Annex III).
The representative of France, speaking in explanation
of vote, also on
behalf of the United Kingdom and the United States, said
that all
three delegations had voted "no" on the draft, since,
despite
consultations with the sponsors, the text still had not
adequately
addressed the main problem and retained a fundamental
ambiguity. He
remained concerned that the thrust of the draft was to
prepare the
ground for the establishment of the southern hemisphere
as a
nuclear-weapon-free zone.
He said that since all the land territory in the southern
hemisphere,
with the exception of a few small islands, was already
covered by
nuclear- weapon-free zones, the high seas was the only
new area that
could possibly contribute to a nuclear-weapon-free southern
hemisphere. Many speakers had said that was not the intention
of the
draft resolution, as it even made reference to the United
Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. If the area was not
to cover the
high seas, however, then what would the establishment
of such a zone
add to existing zones? he asked.
He could only conclude, therefore, that the sponsors of
the text were
attempting to create a new zone that covered international
waters, he
said. Such a step would be inconsistent with international
law and
would be
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting
(AM) 4
November 1998
unacceptable to all delegations that respected the Law
of the Sea.
Despite other and lesser problems, the sponsors had made
some useful
improvements, although those were still not enough to
overcome his
general concern about the text's purpose. He hoped it
would meet the
needs of all delegations next year.
The vote on the text should in no way be interpreted as
calling into
question his firm commitment to the treaties of Tlatelolco,
Rarotonga,
Pelindaba and the Antarctic. Nor did he object, in principle,
to the
establishment of a new nuclear-weapon-free zone, which
could make an
important contribution to both regional and global security,
provided
it was supported by all States in the region concerned
and was
embodied in an appropriate treaty, including provisions
for full-scope
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.
The representative of China said his country had all along
supported
the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone on the
basis of
arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the
region
concerned. It had, thus, signed all the relevant protocols
to such
treaties. Meanwhile, it had actively supported efforts
by the
countries of the southeast Asian region to establish such
a zone, and
was consulting with them in connection with signing the
relevant
protocols as soon as possible.
He said that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free
zones promoted
nuclear disarmament, prevented nuclear proliferation,
and led to
international peace and stability. Any zone should be
in line with the
United Nations Charter. Besides being established on the
basis of
arrangements freely arrived at, the practical circumstances
of the
countries concerned should also be taken into account.
Those zones,
however, should not cover the special continental shelf
or sovereign
and maritime rights. Further, the countries of such zones
should not
use military alliances as an excuse to shed their obligations.
The present text referred to the applicable principles
and norms of
navigational freedom on the high seas and maritime navigation
rights
in international law, he said. It did not seek to create
additional
legal obligations to existing nuclear-weapon-free zone
treaties. Thus,
his delegation had voted in favour of the draft.
The representative of India would explain her delegation's
vote on
operative paragraph 3 of the text, which referred to the
establishment
of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia. It had been
her country's
consistent policy that such a proposal could only be based
on
arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the
region
concerned. There was no consensus on a nuclear-weapon-free
zone in
South Asia.
She had, therefore, called for a separate vote on that
paragraph and
had voted against it. Those contradictions were even more
apparent
when the
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting
(AM) 4
November 1998
reference to South Asia was seen in the context of recent
developments. Thus, the paragraph did not correspond to
the current
reality and had been retained at the insistence of one
co-sponsor --
not from South Asia -- even while the co-sponsor that
had presented
the reference had been prepared to delete it.
That operative paragraph made a mockery of the stipulation
that
arrangements for the establishment of such zones should
be freely
arrived at, she said. Her country could just as well have
proposed
that East Asia and Europe be added after South Asia. That
paragraph
distorted the text, which prompted her abstention on the
text as a
whole.
The Committee next approved the draft resolution on nuclear
disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.47) by a recorded vote
of 87 in
favour to 40 against, with 15 abstentions (Annex IV).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of
Japan said his
delegation had abstained in the vote on the nuclear disarmament
draft.
He had already referred, in explanation of his vote on
the nuclear
weapons convention (document A/C.1/53/L.14), to his country's
fervent
desire to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons. The idea
contained in
the present text, especially the element of a specified
timeframe, did
not command the support of all nuclear- weapon States
and of many
non-nuclear-weapon States. The draft, therefore, was not
formulated on
the basis of appropriate considerations.
The text did not refer to the highly important Treaty
on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its review
process, he went
on. That Treaty was one of the most effectively realistic
frameworks
The representative of China, speaking in explanation of the vote,
said he had voted in favour of the nuclear disarmament
draft
because he had supported its main thrust and shared many
of the
same views with the Non-Aligned Movement and the non-nuclear-weapon
States in favouring the complete elimination of nuclear
weapons. In
connection with the policy of nuclear deterrence that was
based on
the first-use of nuclear weapons, he favoured the conclusion
of an
international, legally binding instrument of negative security
assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States.
He noted that nuclear-weapon States had different historical
backgrounds and motives for developing nuclear weapons.
His country
had been compelled to develop a small number of nuclear
weapons for
its self-defence, but it had never threatened any country
or shirked
from its nuclear disarmament responsibilities. From the
time it first
possessed those weapons, it had declared that under no
circumstances
would it be the first to use them. It had also committed
not to use
them against non-nuclear-weapon States or zones, and was
the only
nuclear-weapon State that had made and abided by such
a commitment.
Moreover, he said his country had never participated in
a nuclear arms
race or deployed nuclear weapons outside its territory,
or threatened
their use against other countries. His country was ready
to work with
other countries in a joint effort to establish a nuclear-weapon-free
world at an early date. Nuclear disarmament required that
specific
steps and timetables be worked out by the international
community
within the framework of negotiations for a nuclear convention.
The
countries with the largest and most sophisticated nuclear
arsenals had
a long way to go towards nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile,
they should
continue to fulfil their responsibilities in that regard.
The representative of the Côte d'Ivoire said had
his delegation been
present during the vote on the nuclear disarmament draft,
it would
have voted in favour.
The representative of Bhutan also said that had he been
present for
the vote, he would have voted in favour of that text.
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd
Meeting (AM) 4
November 1998
The representative of the Marshall Islands said that,
had he been
present for the vote yesterday on conventional arms control
at the
regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/53/L.35),
he would
have voted in favour.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution on the
Ottawa
Convention (document A/C.1/53/L.33).
The representative of Lebanon, speaking in explanation
of vote before
the vote, said that his country had supported the principle
on which
the Convention was based. He thanked the many States for
their efforts
in that regard, including Canada, Belgium, Norway and
Austria. His
country had not signed the Convention so far, however,
because Israel
continued to occupy a portion of Lebanon's territory and
Israel had
rejected the immediate and unconditional application of
Security
Council resolution 425 (1978).
He said he would request that mine clearance assistance
be granted not
only to those countries that were parties to the Convention.
Such
financial and technical assistance should be extended
to all States
that needed it, without exception. Out of appreciation
for the noble
efforts being made by some States associated with the
Convention, his
delegation would vote in favour of the draft.
The Committee approved the draft resolution on the Ottawa
Convention
(document A/C.1/53/L.33) by a recorded vote of 124 in
favour to none
against, with 19 abstentions (Annex V).
The representative of Finland, speaking in explanation
of vote, said
that his country was committed to a total ban on anti-personnel
landmines. That was also the objective of the draft resolution.
The
Ottawa Convention was an important step towards a worldwide
ban and
its early entry into force had further contributed to
those
expectations. It was in that context that his country
voted in favour
of the draft, thereby supporting it without prejudice
to the first
operative paragraph.
He said that the global normative framework regarding
anti-personnel
landmines would be further strengthened by the entry into
force of the
strengthened Protocol II of the Convention on Prohibitions
or
Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons
Which May Be
Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate
Effects
(Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons). The Conference
on
Disarmament should continue to address the issue, with
a particular
focus on landmines transfers, to complement the Ottawa
Convention.
The representative of Pakistan, speaking in explanation
of vote, said
that his country had been a long-standing supporter of
the Convention
on Certain Conventional Weapons, including the Protocol
restricting
the use of landmines. That Convention and its Protocols
were a bulwark
against the
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd
Meeting (AM) 4
November 1998
indiscriminate use of certain conventional weapons. Even
before that
Convention had come into existence, his country had strictly
observed
humanitarian law. Thus, its commitment to the Convention
and its
Protocols was without hesitation.
He said that his country had a long border and lived under
the
constant threat of the use of force. It, therefore, had
to resort to
anti-personnel mines for its defensive strategy. Presently,
the
international community could usefully focus on, first,
universal
adherence to the new Protocol II of the Convention on
Certain
Conventional Weapons, because that instrument would lead
to the
resolution of almost all the humanitarian problems that
had resulted
from the widespread and indiscriminate use of those weapons.
The international community, especially those nations
financially able
and primarily responsible for the 25,000 annual deaths
from those
weapons, must support an invigorated demining programme,
he went on.
The Conference on Disarmament could also promote progress
towards the
ultimate prohibition of those weapons, without jeopardizing
the
security of States. Given his country's approach to the
problem and
its continued reliance on those weapons for defensive
strategy, his
delegation had abstained in the vote, while applauding
the noble
objectives it sought to promote.
The representative of Egypt, speaking in explanation of
vote on the
landmines convention, said that his country's problem
with those
weapons began when they were left behind from the Second
World War. As
a result of the wars with Israel, the 22.7 million landmines
now
covered an area of 228,000 hectares. The enormous size
of the infected
area impeded mine-clearance efforts, as did the oxidation
of trigger
mechanisms and the sudden movement of sands that increased
the depth
of the mines. Those factors had resulted in 8,317 casualties
between
1945 and 1996.
Although his country had not planted those mines, the
Egyptian arms
forces, through 1991, had removed 11 million landmines
without any
foreign assistance. That pioneering operation had levied
a heavy toll
on its limited capabilities and had diverted much needed
resources
from other sectors. His country, therefore, was in dire
need for
extensive assistance, including special demining equipment.
He said his Government supported the humanitarian objectives
enshrined
in the Ottawa Convention, but it still failed to address
some of its
pressing concerns. It did not lay down a binding legal
framework that
recognized the responsibility of those States that had
deployed
landmines on the territories of other States. As a result,
it did not
adequately provide for assurances in the field of mine-clearance
assistance. It also did not take into consideration the
legitimate
right of self-defence, as provided for in Article 51 of
the United
Nations Charter.
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd
Meeting (AM) 4
November 1998
The use of landmines under certain conditions, especially
in the
absence of other financially feasible alternatives, was
a matter of
cardinal importance for countries with extended and difficult
to
protect borders, he said. Although some had referred to
a viable
alternative, no operational measure had been presented
to address
those concerns. Moreover, the means to produce and use
such a viable
alternative was restricted to a few States. Thus, those
who needed
that new and advanced form of self-defence had to rely
heavily on
expensive imports from limited producers. Meanwhile, national
security
imperatives were ignored.
The problem Egypt faced was more acute than ever, as its
population
grew and expanded outside the narrow Nile Valley, he said.
Furthermore, the infested areas had great potential for
economic
development. Although his country associated itself with
the
humanitarian aspects, as well as the need for a total
landmines ban,
it could not comprehend the argument that certain areas
deserved more
attention than others.
Finally, he said that the methodology used to conclude
the Ottawa
Convention outside the aegis of the Conference on Disarmament
had
weakened and defeated the democratic process of multilateralism
and
the meaning of its collective efforts. He hoped the issue
would find
the proper place in the agenda of the Conference.
The representative of Singapore, also speaking in explanation
of vote
on the Ottawa Convention, said that his country had been
clear and
open about its position on landmines and its opposition
to their
indiscriminate use. Towards that goal, it had declared
a two-year
moratorium in 1996 on the export of landmines that did
not contain
self-neutralizing mechanisms. Last February, it had expanded
the
moratorium's scope to include all forms of landmines and
it had
indefinitely extended it. At the same time, it firmly
believed that
legitimate security concerns and the right to self-defence
could not
be disregarded. A blanket ban, therefore, might be counter
productive,
especially if it compromised the security of its followers.
The representative of Morocco, speaking in explanation
of vote, said
that his country supported the humanitarian objectives
of the draft,
as well as Canada's efforts in that regard. It continued
to view the
text in the light of certain security concerns, particularly
in its
southern provinces. His delegation had, therefore, abstained
in the
vote.
The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking
in explanation
of vote, said his country had experienced tremendous suffering
due to
the Korean War. It had attached particular importance
to international
humanitarian law and had upheld its basic principles.
The use of
anti-personnel mines was no exception. In joining international
efforts to prevent suffering from the indiscriminate use
of those
weapons, his Government had implemented an indefinite
extension of its
moratorium on its export of anti-personnel landmines and
had actively
participated, including financially, in United
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd
Meeting (AM) 4
November 1998
Nations mine action programmes. A comprehensive and coordinated
approach, with the United Nations as focal point, would
enable the
international community to address the tremendous human
and material
loss caused by those weapons.
Given its security interests, however, his country could
not join the
Ottawa Convention, he said. The use of anti-personnel
landmines was
indispensable for the defence of the demilitarized zone
on the Korean
peninsula, which was one of the most heavily mined areas
of the world.
It would not forego the use of those weapons until the
threats to its
security were removed. The international community, however,
should
take more practical steps towards minimizing the suffering
caused by
those weapons, namely through the adoption of a legally
binding and
universally applicable instrument banning the transfer
of all kinds of
mines. The Conference on Disarmament should start negotiations
on such
a ban at the earliest possible date. For those reasons,
his delegation
had abstained.
The representative of Turkey, speaking in explanation
of vote, said
his delegation had voted in favour of the draft, but it
had unique
security concerns prompting it to carefully consider its
landmines
policy. While fully conscious of the suffering caused
by the
indiscriminate use of those weapons, Turkey's long land
borders needed
to be protected against trespassing and drug and illicit
arms
trafficking.
He said his delegation had unsuccessfully sought the inclusion
of a
clause that would free States parties who shared common
borders with
non-States parties of their Treaty obligations. That had
compelled
Turkey to abstain in the vote on the draft in the last
two years and
had precluded it from signing the Ottawa Convention last
year. It
associated itself, however, with the Convention's fundamental
humanitarian considerations and would welcome its entry
into force
next March.
For its part, in 1996 his country had implemented a national
moratorium banning the export and transfer of anti-personnel
landmines. It had announced a three-year extension of
that moratorium
and it did not exclude signing the Ottawa Convention in
the future,
once its security concerns were satisfactorily addressed.
His
delegation had opted to vote in favour of the draft text,
but wished
to underline that the Conference on Disarmament was the
competent
forum to address the security concerns of countries and
enable them to
join a landmines ban in stages.
The representative of Cuba, speaking in explanation of
vote, said that
it had always striven in landmines negotiations to guarantee
maximum
protection for the civilian population, without limiting
the military
capacity of States and their right of self-defence. The
absence of any
recognition of that legitimate right in the draft resolution
had
caused his delegation to abstain.
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd
Meeting (AM) 4
November 1998
For nearly four decades, Cuba had been exposed to a policy
of
aggression and hostility from the most economically and
militarily
powerful country in the world, he said. Renouncing its
anti-personnel
landmines for its defence was a challenge it could not
afford. It
continued to support all balanced efforts to eliminate
the terrible
effects of the irresponsible use of those weapons.
In explanation of vote, the representative of Iran said
his country
was affected by millions of anti-personnel landmines and,
therefore,
welcomed any initiative designed to ban those weapons.
Accordingly, it
had declared a moratorium on the export of landmines.
However, the
Ottawa Convention did not adequately address both the
humanitarian and
security aspects of the issue and, for that reason, he
had abstained
in the vote.
The representative of India, in explaining her abstention,
said her
country was committed to a non-discriminatory and universal
ban on
landmines. That could be best achieved through a phased
approach and a
confidence- building process enabling States, especially
those with
large borders, to address their legitimate national security
requirements. In effect, the immediate and complete elimination
of
those weapons would not be in the security interest of
some States.
International consideration of the landmine problem should
also
address the related questions of mine clearance and assistance
to mine
victims.
The representative of Algeria said she had voted in favour
due to her
country's strong support for international efforts to
contain the
landmine menace. Her country had signed the Ottawa Convention
and
welcomed its entry into force. It supported a total prohibition
and
subscribed to the humanitarian objectives of the Convention.
Those
objectives, however, could only be realized if the Convention
had the
support of the international community and of the producers
of
landmines.
The representative of Kuwait indicated that she had not
wanted to
participate in the vote.
The representative of China, explaining his abstention
in the vote,
said his Government had always expressed serious humanitarian
concerns
over the landmine problem and believed that the right
approach to
dealing with it was to accommodate both the humanitarian
and security
aspects. Without compromising the legitimate rights of
States to
self-defence, those weapons should be controlled to limit
civilian
injury. There was need for restrictions on the use of
mines and for
international mine-clearing efforts.
He said his country actively participated in the process
leading to
the adoption of the Convention on Certain Conventional
Weapons and had
ratified its Protocol. Furthermore, his country had joined
international mine-clearing efforts and pledged $100,000
for
mine-clearing in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1999. In cooperation
with
the United Nations, it would also hold training
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd
Meeting (AM) 4
November 1998
courses to facilitate the efforts of the international
community with
regard to mine clearance.
The representative of Myanmar said, although he respected
the decision
of all those that had acceded to the Ottawa Convention,
his country
was not a signatory because it believed that a step-by-step
approach
was a better way to deal with the problem. Death was caused
by the
indiscriminate use and transfer of those weapons. Those
were the real
issues to be addressed and to ban. His Government had
obvious
reservations about the way in which the subject was being
handled. It
was for that reason that he had abstained in the vote.
The Committee then took up the draft resolution on objective
information on military matters, including transparency
of military
expenditures (document A/C.1/53/L.30).
The representative of Lebanon made a general statement
with regard to
the cluster of draft resolutions dealing with confidence-building
measures, including transparency in armaments. He noted
that the three
draft resolutions addressing that subject -- documents
A/C.1/53/L.30,
L.39 and L.40 -- were similar in substance and form. He
did not see
why there had to be three resolutions on one issue, in
view of the
question of rationalizing the work of the Committee. The
repetition
was simply unjustifiable.
Continuing, he said despite the reservations of many delegates
in the
past, the general trend regarding transparency in weapons
continued to
involve only conventional weapons. That left a lot to
be desired and
made the whole process incomplete. Ideally, transparency
should also
cover all weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical,
biological
and nuclear weapons. The presentation by States of information
on
their military expenditures and weapons categories should
hide
nothing. The credibility of transparency depended on the
confidence it
gave States.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said his Government
had
been participating in the United Nations Register on Conventional
Arms
since 1993. The enhancement of transparency was the key
in building
confidence among and between States and the Register had
been
significant in that regard. Particular importance should
be attached
to ensuring universality in the participation of States.
All those not
yet participating in the Register should reconsider their
position.
With regard to the future of the Register, it needed to
be underlined
that the participation of every member of the international
community
was indispensable.
The representative of Pakistan said greater transparency
should not be
a substitute for the reduction of tension and the resolution
of
conflicts caused by arms proliferation. The acquisition
of those arms
was governed by the national and regional security environment
of
those affected. That was a factor that should be seriously
addressed.
_________________________________________________________________
First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd
Meeting (AM) 4
November 1998
Also, he continued, reporting military expenditures based
on
fallacious grounds did not help. Armed forces were maintained
at a
certain level due to the requirements for self-defence,
especially by
small States with relatively bigger neighbours. Thus,
the approach
adopted in dealing with the issue was not acceptable to
the majority
of States in the international system. Hard negotiations
on that issue
were needed.
The representative of Oman said his delegation had maintained
his
country's tradition of supporting resolutions on transparency.
That
should not, however, be seen as a total acceptance of
everything in
the drafts, as they had some obvious defects. His delegation
shared
the position of the group of Arab States regarding the
status and
scope of the Register, and he hoped for meaningful international
consideration of the matter. He supported the idea of
combining the
three drafts addressing the transparency issue, to enable
the
Committee avoid having to deal with redundant texts.
The Committee approved the draft resolution on objective
information
on military matters, including transparency of military
expenditures
(document A/C.1/53/L.30) without a vote, with Bosnia and
Herzegovina
joining the list of co-sponsors.
(Annexes follow)
First Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd
Meeting (AM) 4
November 1998
ANNEX I
Vote on `And South Asia' in Nuclear-Free Southern Hemisphere
The words "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3, concerning
nuclear- weapon-free zones, in the draft resolution on
a
nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas
(document
A/C.1/53/L.37) were retained by a recorded vote of 118
in favour to 2
against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria,
Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin,
Bolivia,
Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada,
Central African
Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte
d'Ivoire,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican
Republic,
Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Finland,
Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti,
Hungary,
Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya,
Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Malta,
Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway,
Oman,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,
Qatar, Republic
of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation,
San
Marino, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon
Islands, South
Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand,
The
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia,
Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United
Republic
of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Bhutan, India.
Abstain: Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic
Republic of the
Congo, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, France,
Israel,
Latvia, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan,
Sierra
Leone, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan,
Viet Nam.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain,
Belize,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros,
Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea,
Gabon,
Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mauritius, Palau, Papua
New Guinea,
Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent
and the
Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan,
Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu.
(END OF ANNEX I)
First Committee 18 Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting
(AM) 4
November 1998
ANNEX II
Vote on Operative Paragraph 3 of Nuclear Free Southern
Hemisphere
Operative paragraph 3, concerning nuclear-weapon-free
zones, of the
draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere
and
adjacent areas (document A/C.1/53/L.37) was retained by
a recorded
vote of 125 in favour to 1 against, with 18 abstentions,
as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia,
Australia,
E-mail: icbl@icbl.org