21/11/2001
Press Release
GA/9976



Fifty-sixth General Assembly

Plenary

61st Meeting (PM)


GENERAL ASSEMBLY AFFIRMS IMPORTANCE OF SOUTH ATLANTIC

TO GLOBAL MARITIME, COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS


Zone of Peace Text Adopted; In Other Actions, UNEP Executive

Director Re-elected; UN Year of Cultural Heritage, 2002, Proclaimed


The General Assembly this afternoon affirmed the importance of the South Atlantic to global maritime and commercial transactions.  It took this action in adopting, by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (United States), a resolution on the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic.  (See Annex II.)


In other action, the Assembly also adopted, without a vote, a draft proclaiming 2002 as the United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage and re-elected Klaus Töpfer to a second four-year term as Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 


By the draft on the South Atlantic zone of peace, the Assembly also affirmed the determination to preserve the region for peaceful purposes, and activities protected by international law, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  The Assembly called on all States to promote the objectives of the zone of peace, and refrain from actions inconsistent with them, in particular those that might provoke tension or conflict.


By a separate recorded vote of 86 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 1 abstention (Singapore), the Assembly adopted a paragraph related to transport of radioactive and toxic wastes.  (See Annex I.)


Speaking on the draft were the representatives of Argentina, Brazil and Nigeria.  The United States and France spoke in explanation of vote. 


The resolution on the United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage invited the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to serve as the lead agency for the Year.  It called on the international community, including the private sector, to make voluntary contributions and support activities promoting and protecting national and world cultural heritage. 


Speaking on the draft were representatives of Egypt, Canada, Italy, Japan and Ukraine.


Klaus Töpfer will begin his second term as Executive Director of UNEP on

1 February 2002.  The representative of Nigeria said Mr. Töpfer had helped build UNEP into a focal point for the environment by promoting the environmental dimension of sustainable development in the United Nations system.


The representatives of Cambodia, Eritrea and Zambia spoke on landmines, as the Assembly completed its consideration, begun this morning, of assistance in mine action.  The Permanent Observer for Switzerland also spoke on the issue.  The representatives of the United Kingdom and Ethiopia spoke in right of reply.


The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 26 November, when it is expected to take up the reports of the two International Tribunals, the one on crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia, and the other on crimes in Rwanda and neighbouring States.


Background


The General Assembly met this afternoon to conclude its consideration of assistance in mine action, to elect the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and to consider the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic and the United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage, 2002.  (For background information, see Press Release GA/9975 of today’s date.)


Statements


SUN SUON (Cambodia) said his country had taken steps to reduce the risk of landmine accidents.  The Cambodian Mine-Action Centre, established in 1992, was committed to improving its effectiveness and productivity.  The monthly rate of casualties from mine accidents had been significantly reduced from 200 in 1996 to about 80 last year.  With an estimated 4 million to 6 million mines and unexploded ordnance buried in its soil, mine clearance was a priority for the Government.  The Cambodian Mine-Action Centre had now embarked upon reforms, including the decentralization of its activities.


In 1999, Cambodia sent a small demining team to Kosovo as its contribution to the peacekeeping operation there.  It looked forward to sharing its experiences in demining with countries affected by war and landmines, including nation-building efforts in Afghanistan.  As a State party to the Ottawa Convention on Landmines and Protocol II to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, Cambodia would continue to join the global effort to eliminate landmines throughout the world.  Landmines continued to be a severe menace, and constituted a challenge to the development efforts of affected countries.  He expressed gratitude to Cambodia’s donors, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), for their financial and technical assistance.  A multilateral approach to resolving demining issues would be a positive step.


MWELWA C. MUSAMBACHIME (Zambia) believed that landmines were a great hindrance to economic and social development in all affected countries, especially in developing countries.  It was sad that in many parts of the world human beings continued to suffer serious and often fatal injuries from this indiscriminate weapon.  Unfortunately, most of the victims were innocent civilians, including women and children.  That problem continued to present itself even long after the cessation of hostilities.  For the above reasons, anti-personnel landmines had no military value in this high-tech age, and must never be regarded as the weapon of choice by any peace-loving country.


After exhaustive consultations, his Government had finally established the Zambia Mine-Action Centre which commenced operations in August 2001.  A capacity-building programme was currently ongoing, with the valuable assistance of the Government of the United States.  Training programme in humanitarian demining, mine awareness and leadership training were currently under way.  He was of the view that landmines were a humanitarian concern and must be addressed from that perspective.  In Zambia, areas suspected to be landmine-affected had experienced impediments to their socio-economic development.  In that regard, all efforts to deal with landmines must respect the fundamental humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and humanity.


ANDEBRHAN WELDEGIORGIS (Eritrea) said the formulation of a five-year strategy for mine action by the United Nations system represented a significant milestone towards a framework for action guided by shared objectives.  His country’s experience in the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) during the second half of this year reaffirmed the importance of the Secretary-General’s concept of an emergency response plan to address the immediate requirements of local populations, aid agencies and peacekeeping forces.  After the signing of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia in June 2000, which called on both countries to facilitate emergency mine-action assistance in coordination with the United Nations, mine-action operations had been initiated on the basis of a rapid survey.


Significant progress had been made to date.  The major impediment to further progress remained Ethiopia’s refusal to provide the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) with operationally useful information on its minefields, despite its obligation under Article 8 of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities.  As a result, Ethiopian-laid minefields in the TSZ continued to claim a heavy toll of human life and property, including UNMEE’s personnel and vehicles, and prevented returnees from using their farm fields and grazing lands. 


Mine contamination in Eritrea began in the 1940s during the Second World War, he said.  Moreover, virtually the whole of Eritrea was infested by landmines during the 30-year war of national liberation from 1961 to 1991.  The Eritrean Humanitarian Demining Programme had cleared about half a million mines from 1991 to 1998.  However, there had been a significant reversal as mine contamination had been hugely aggravated during the most recent war between Eritrea and Ethiopia.  Today, there existed approximately 2 million landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXOs) in Eritrea, a country of 3.5 million people.  This translated to almost one landmine per person -– one of the highest levels of contamination per capita in the world.  Eritrea was working in close cooperation with international partners to develop the institutional capacity to eventually make Eritrea free of all landmines and UXOs.


JENO C.A. STAEHELIN, Permanent Observer for Switzerland, said the malicious danger of mines could be eliminated only through the joint efforts of international organizations, governments and civil society, NGOs, experts and the directly affected population.  In spite of concrete and important progress in the fight against mines, millions remained buried in the ground or continued to be stockpiled.  Hardly a day would pass without men, women and children being hurt, maimed or even killed by these weapons.  Switzerland recognized the key role of the United Nations Mine-Action Service as focal point for mine action within the United Nations system, especially in the field of coordination, policy-making and advocacy.


He noted with appreciation the United Nations Mine Action strategy covering the period 2001-2005, whose goals were reasonable, though ambitious.  Particular attention must be given to local capacity-building and national ownership, in order to guarantee sustainability of mine action over the longer term.  Also, quality management was crucial in view of the limited availability of financial resources.


Switzerland attached great importance to mine action, he said.  It was a priority of its peace and security policy, and an important element of the Swiss human security policy.  Switzerland had been engaged in the fight against mines at different levels for several years.


ALISTAIR HARRISON (United Kingdom), in right of reply, referred to remarks by Argentina this morning concerning the Falkland Islands.  He said he welcomed the reference to the exchange of notes between the two Governments earlier this year, in which they stated their intention to carry out a feasibility study with reference to landmines.  With regards to the Argentine delegate’s remarks on sovereignty, he had decided to take issue.  Great Britain’s position on the sovereignty of the Falklands was well known.


Mr. ANDREA (Ethiopia), in right of reply, said his country appreciated the United Nations role in mine clearance.  As a country affected by mines, Ethiopia had been closely working with UNMEE and, contrary to the statement by the representative of Eritrea, had already submitted all information requested in the matter to UNMEE.  Ethiopia was in dire need for assistance in mine clearance.  The issues brought up by Eritrea were not in line with the agenda item.


The Assembly was informed that a draft resolution on the item would be submitted at a later date.


Election of Executive Director of UNEP


On the nomination of the Secretary-General, the Assembly re-elected Klaus Töpfer as Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for a four-year term, beginning on 1 February 2002 and ending on 31 January 2006.


OLUSEGUN AKINSANYA (Nigeria) said that Mr. Töpfer had met most expectations in his first term as Executive Director.  He had been instrumental in building UNEP as a focal point on the environment and, under his guidance, UNEP had worked tirelessly for the promotion of coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development within the United Nations system.


Mr. Töpfer had further elevated dialogue on the environment and sustainable development, through effective implementation of the decisions of the UNEP Governing Council.  Mr. Töpfer’s proactive stance on environmental governance was a challenge to United Nations development agencies, which had so far failed to live up to expectations in developing effective mechanisms on the implementation of the development component of sustainable development.  Nigeria also commended Mr. Töpfer’s enduring support to Africa.


Zone of Peace and Cooperation of South Atlantic


ARNOLDO M. LISTRE (Argentina) introduced the draft resolution on the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic (document A/56/L.12) on behalf of the 24 member countries of the Zone.  He said that in 1985 the African and Latin American States of the South Atlantic had undertaken to strengthen their relations of cooperation to establish more active relations and active common goals such as environmental protection and economic development.  In the 16 years that had elapsed since then, there had been many achievements, and five high-level meetings had been held.  The draft resolution under consideration reflected the main priorities of the Zone, and summarized its main achievements.  He reaffirmed the importance of the consolidation of areas where the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was banned.  The countries of the Zone were also ready and willing to employ initiatives to prevent the illicit sale of small arms and light weapons.


He called attention to a revision in the language of operative paragraph 5.  At the end, the word “conclude” should be replaced by “further extend”.  Argentina reaffirmed its conviction that the objectives of peace and cooperation could be obtained only if human rights and fundamental freedoms were duly respected in the countries of the region.  The questions of peace, security and development were interrelated and inseparable.


Regarding the transportation of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and radioactive waste, he said, this should be carried out in conformity with international regulations and also take into account the interests of coastal States.


LUIZ TUPY CALDAS DE MOURA (Brazil) said his country was a sponsor of the draft on the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic because the Zone was recognized to be a valuable mechanism providing framework for joint efforts to pursue common goals of peace, development and protection of the environment in the region.  He said the Zone was a supplemental instrument for coordinating actions by other institutions and arrangements.


He said some regional priorities were readily implementable, namely, denuclearization, protection of the marine environment, and cooperation in fighting drug trafficking and related offences.  The illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons was considered especially destabilizing.  The Organization of American States (OAS), the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) had all undertaken initiatives to alleviate that major threat to international peace and security.  To achieve further goals, the Zone needed the continued support of the United Nations system and of international financial institutions.


The sixth ministerial meeting of States members, to be held in Benin, would undoubtedly advance the innovative modalities adopted at the fifth meeting in Buenos Aires in 1998, he continued, adding that the Zone worked as a catalyst to promote dialogue and cooperation among the countries of Africa's West Coast and South America.  Both sides of the Atlantic also benefited from each other's experience in promoting democratic values, expanding trade, investment, air and sea links, and intensifying South-South cooperation.  The draft resolution on the Zone deserved majority support.


OLUSEGUN AKINSANYA (Nigeria) said the initiative taken in 1986 by 24 member States to create the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic remained a landmark achievement in the promotion of regional peace and international security.  Nigeria was committed to the objectives of the Zone, and attached importance to the Buenos Aires Final Declaration of 1998.  Its priority lay in the areas of peace and security in the Zone, illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, and cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking and related offences.


Nigeria also gave priority to the protection of marine resources and coastal environment and the promotion of external trade, as well as investment and economic cooperation.  It called for respect for its desire to keep the Zone free of nuclear weapons and nuclear-related materials.


He said his country had intensified efforts to rid the West African subregion of the illicit circulation and proliferation of small arms and light weapons.  The Programme of Action adopted by the United Nations conference on the subject in New York last July provided a clear road map for their eradication. Nigeria supported the Secretary-General’s report on exploration of initiatives to implement that Programme.  It had set up a committee to do so at the national level.


Nigeria and South Africa had agreed to police the South Atlantic waters in the African region, and urged member States in the Zone to continue to coordinate and exchange information on the movement of vessels engaged in illegal fishing there.  Last May, Nigeria hosted a meeting on strengthening trade ties within the Zone, the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) economic group, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).  The meeting provided a springboard for further progress on joint activities in education, health, scientific and academic research, as well as cultural exchanges.


Action on Draft


The Assembly was informed that Angola and Cameroon had joined as co-sponsors of the draft resolution.


RICHARD BROWN (United States), in explanation of vote, said the draft had positive elements, such as references to the need for control of drug trafficking and illicit trafficking in small arms.  However, the definition of the zone of peace could, in other contexts, be construed as an attempt to infringe on the freedom of navigation and right of collective self-defence guaranteed under international law.  The draft’s operative paragraph 8 implied that the international scheme regulating the maritime transport of radioactive wastes was not adequate at the moment.  However, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had recently concluded that the current international regulation scheme was fully adequate.  His delegation had called for a recorded vote and would vote against the separate vote on paragraph 8 and abstain on the resolution as a whole.


[Operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution contained in document A/56/L.12, “Calls upon Member States to continue their efforts towards the achievement of appropriate regulation of maritime transport of radioactive and toxic wastes, taking into account the interests of the coastal States and in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the regulations of the International Maritime Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency;”]


The Assembly adopted operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution as orally amended by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 1 against (United States), and

1 abstention (Singapore).  (See Annex I.)


The Assembly then adopted the resolution as a whole, as orally amended, by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (United States).  (See Annex II.)

JEANE-CLAUDE BRUNET (France), in explanation of vote, said he had voted in favour of the draft, as in previous years, but he recalled certain reservations on the general concept of the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic relating to uncertainties about the geographical limits of the Zone, the exact nature of obligations, and the desire to have the rules of international law respected in regard to the use of maritime routes.


United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage


AHMED ABOUL GHEIT (Egypt) said that among the economic, social and political issues examined by the United Nations, cultural topics were of interest because, in the midst of economic interest, the role of cultural dialogue among peoples could be noted as a point of common interest and convergence.  If culture played a fundamental role in international relations, the role of cultural heritage was a valid asset to civilization.  It was the result of accumulation of human experiences and of the travails of our ancestors.


He said our duty vis-à-vis our ancestors was to preserve their heritage and to examine it and deduce eternal human values and experience, so that it may be left as a heritage to our children.  Cultural heritage should be researched and safeguarded, and used to identify common roots in the heritage of other peoples and civilizations.  It was in this context that this initiative was inscribed.


GILBERT LAURIN (Canada) said the thirtieth anniversary of the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage provided countries concerned with preserving cultural heritage an opportunity to celebrate what had been achieved, and reflect on future challenges.  Many of humanity's treasures must be protected through global action based on international solidarity and cooperation, as articulated in the World Heritage Convention.  But the Convention was not concerned only with sites of universal value.  Signatories recognized that the responsibility for ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of cultural heritage belonged primarily to each State.


This past month, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) had adopted the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, which elevated cultural diversity to the "common heritage of humanity", he continued.  The 1995 Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development, "Our Creative Diversity", reminded the world community that cultural heritage was fragile, and urged that particular attention be paid to intangible heritage, including languages, folklore, oral traditions, indigenous knowledge and local traditions.


The proposed United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage provided opportunities for new approaches through collaboration with the education sector, natural and social sciences, tourism and cultural industries.


BRUNELLA BORZI (Italy) said that if the international community wished to achieve dialogue between cultures, and to preserve historic memory for future generations, it was not enough to protect tangible heritage.  Instead, it must also safeguard fragile socio-cultural heritage that ranged from oral tradition and folklore to the issues invoked by the term “intellectual property”.


She said that, following the bombing of Dubrovnik in 1991, Italy proposed a resolution, which was adopted by the General Assembly, appealing to conflicting parties to protect cultural and natural heritage.  It urged them to withdraw from the city of Dubrovnik, which was included on the World Heritage List.  The follow-up to that important resolution included the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of 1992, and the Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects of 1995.


The presence on the World Heritage List of 690 sites -– 529 cultural, 138 natural, and 23 mixed properties -– located in 122 States attested to the success of such international efforts.  Those efforts were accompanied by political reflection on inter-cultural relations, the representation of diverse cultures on the international scene with equal dignity, and the mutual enrichment and understanding that can be achieved through inter-cultural contact.


YOSHIYUKI MOTOMURA (Japan) said promoting education and raising awareness to foster respect for national and world cultural heritage was necessary for the furthering of understanding and respect for other cultures and values.


Japan highly appreciated the activities undertaken by UNESCO for the protection and preservation of the world’s cultural and natural heritage, and expected that it would continue to play a pivotal role as the lead agency in this area.  He said that, recognizing that nature and humankind could not be separated but were destined to coexist, his Government thought the international community must make a collective effort to recognize it, as well.  Destroying nature posed a serious threat to human beings and human security.


The intangible heritage of mankind served as a common ground for the promotion of mutual understanding and enrichment among cultures and civilizations, as well as an essential source of cultural identity for each nation.  To protect and promote that heritage, Japan had supported UNESCO’s activities for safeguarding traditional culture and folklore.  He hoped the United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage would also provide an opportunity to further raise awareness and promote the importance of intangible cultural heritage.


IHOR SAGACH (Ukraine) said that cultural diversity was the most precious and delicate treasure that had been granted to humanity.  Not only national traditions, but also masterpieces of art, architecture and human thought had served as important sources for maintaining identity, strength and spirit. Persistent work to protect historical and cultural values of human civilization was not only a vital necessity for all of us, it was also a moral responsibility and obligation, owed to both past and future generations.


The recent destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan was the most vivid example of a crime against culture, where religious intolerance, extremism and totalitarian philosophy had resulted in a cultural tragedy for the whole world.  He also cited the destruction of the World Heritage site in Dubrovnik and the Orthodox churches in Kosovo.  Those dramatic facts proved that it was necessary to reassert the spirit of the World Cultural Convention, which called upon States parties to the Convention to protect global heritage through cooperation, consensus and accord.


Action on Draft on Cultural Heritage, 2002


The Assembly was informed of further sponsors to the draft resolution, “United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage, 2002” (document A/56/L.13):  Argentina, Austria, France, Greece, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jamaica, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United States, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Finland, Madagascar, Republic of Moldova and Suriname.


The Assembly then adopted the draft resolution, without a vote, and concluded consideration of the item.


(annexes follow)


ANNEX I


Vote on Operative Paragraph 8 of Zone of Peace of South Atlantic


The Assembly adopted operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution on Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic (document A/56/L.12) by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Myanmar, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia.


Against:  United States.


Abstain:  Singapore.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX I)


ANNEX II


Vote on Zone of Peace of South Atlantic


The Assembly adopted the draft resolution on Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic (document A/56/L.12) by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia.


Against:  None.


Abstain:  United States.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Israel, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


* *** *