See also: UN DPI Multimedia (Ref: 90DB97130-31)
Press Release
Department of Public Information · News Coverage Service · New York

13 November 1997

General Assembly Plenary
Tenth Emergency Special Session
7th Meeting (PM)


Majority at Special Session also Support Holding Conference
On Applying Geneva Convention Rules in Occupied Territories

At its resumed tenth emergency special session this afternoon, the General Assembly condemned the Israeli Government's failure to comply with previous resolutions, including the call for an end to the construction of Jebal Abu Ghneim, south of East Jerusalem, and all other settlement activity.

Further, the Assembly called for re-injecting momentum into the stalled Middle East peace process and for the implementation of all agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the upholding of the "land for peace" principle.

It took that action by adopting a resolution, as orally amended, by a vote of 139 in favour to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States), with 13 abstentions. (See Annex.)

The Assembly also reiterated its recommendation that the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians in time of war convene a conference on measures to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem. It also recommended that the Government of Switzerland, in its capacity as depository of the Geneva Convention, convene a meeting of experts with a target date not later than the end of February 1998.

The Permanent Observer of Switzerland said there was a lack of consensus on the convening of a conference and its goals. However, a majority of States parties had called for a conference. While only a few were against it, others raised serious concerns, including that it might damage efforts to advance the peace process. He said the proposed conference would be effective only if it were carefully prepared and all interested parties participated. The Contracting Parties should respect their commitments to international humanitarian law and facilitate the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

The representative of the United States said his Government was concerned about construction at Har Homa (Jebal Abu Ghneim), which undermined the peace process and did not establish an environment for successful negotiation. However, the tenth emergency special session and the resolution did not contribute to that goal.

Statements were also made by Singapore, Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Pakistan, Yemen, South Africa, Namibia, Kuwait, Syria and Cuba. The observer of the ICRC addressed the Assembly.

The representative of Jordan introduced the draft resolution and read out oral amendments.

Explanations of vote were made by Swaziland, Canada, Japan, Norway, Australia, Syria, Israel and the Republic of Korea.

Israel, Egypt and the Observer of Palestine spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m., Wednesday, 19 November, to appoint a member of the Joint Inspection Unit and consider the agenda item, "Towards a culture of peace". It will also consider assistance in mine clearance.

Assembly Work Programme

The tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly met again this afternoon to consider illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory. The Assembly had before it a report of the Secretary- General submitted in accordance with resolution ES-10/3 adopted on 15 July. It was also expected to take action on a related draft resolution. (For further details, see Press Release GA/9355 of today's date.)


PANG TE CHENG (Singapore) said Israel's decision to proceed with the building of a settlement in East Jerusalem could undermine the Middle East peace process. All governments had the right to adopt policies and address the housing needs of their populations, and Israel was entitled to its housing plans to provide for the housing needs of both Jews and Arabs in the country, but the selection of East Jerusalem as the venue for a housing project was controversial because unilateral steps would only complicate the already difficult negotiations. The final status of Jerusalem, a city which was sacred not only to Jews but also to Muslims and Christians, was still subject to negotiations between the parties. Singapore urged the Israeli Government to reconsider the housing project in East Jerusalem so that the peace process could continue unimpeded.

He said Singapore firmly believed the peace process was the only path to peace and security for both the Palestinians and Israel, and also their neighbours. He reaffirmed his country's commitment to a just and lasting peace based on Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 425 and the framework of international law. Singapore would continue to support efforts that would enable the Palestinian people to realize their just aspirations.

SERGEI LAVROV (Russian Federation) said unilateral actions could negatively affect the negotiating process, he and called on Israel to halt the construction of new settlements and immediately start implementing the Palestinian-Israeli agreements. He said Israeli security should, of course, be taken into account and noted that Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, had visited the region to make a contribution to breaking the deadlock. He had put forward an initiative to strengthen the climate of trust and international legality in the region and the development of cooperation.

Mr. Lavrov said Russia agreed with the argument in favour of convening a conference on implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. But it also agreed with those States who proposed a meeting of experts from interested countries, to assess all aspects of convening a conference and to consider ways of improving the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories. He said Russia was ready to contribute to efforts aimed at finding a mutually acceptable formula that could help implement the Convention's provisions concerning the occupied territories, and expected that such a formula would be reflected in the draft resolution to come before the Assembly. As a co-sponsor of the peace process, Russia would continue taking steps to make sure it moved forward.

MACHIVENYIKA MAPURANGA (Zimbabwe) said the Organization of African Unity (OAU) had passed resolutions welcoming the peace process and exhorting all parties involved, particularly the Palestinian Liberalization Organization (PLO) and Israel, to persevere in consolidating the peace process in order to bring to fruition the peace and prosperity that had eluded the region for several decades. The OAU position was that the international community must help to save the Middle East region from war and conflict.

He said the provisions of the existing agreements and accords between the PLO and Israel must be sincerely complied with. The Israeli leadership should concede the realities on the ground and resolve all pending issues with the Palestinian National Authority, including the immediate reversal of all provocative and illegal acts of building new settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied Palestinian lands. The construction of those settlements was the single most important cause of conflict in the region. Zimbabwe supported the draft before the Assembly and urged all delegations to do so.

ALI HACHANI (Tunisia) said the Assembly had come together again to condemn the illegal Israeli activities in East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories. It was clear that Israel had not followed up on any of the demands of the Assembly, and had not ended its colonization of the occupied territories. Nor had it ceased its settlements. Israel, the occupying Power, had not yet admitted the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention and had only implemented a minimum number of the Assembly's demands. For example, it had not indicated its intention to cease its illegal activities. Everyone was aware of the impact of those activities on the peace process. Israel was continuing its defiance of the will of the international community and commitments that flowed from its membership of the United Nations.

He said the Assembly must counter Israel's illegal activities in order to save the credibility of the international organization. The Assembly must ask Switzerland to prepare for the convening of a conference. The draft resolution before the Assembly met the demands of the present situation and legitimate claims which had not been met by Israel. He called on Israel to drop its illegitimate actions and implement all aspects of relevant United Nations resolutions.

VICTOR MARRERO (United States) said this was neither the time, the place, nor the format in which the lack of progress in negotiations could receive the consideration it deserved, and that the problem could be addressed only in face-to-face negotiations. His Government was concerned about construction at Har Homa, which undermined the peace process and did not establish an environment for successful negotiation. All wanted to achieve a lasting, just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and the United Nations could play a positive role in that regard.

However, this emergency special session and the draft resolution before the Assembly did not contribute to that goal. Actions by the United Nations such as the annual passage of the Assembly's "positive" resolution on the Middle East peace process could help create support and encouragement for it. But condemnatory actions eroded the confidence and trust on which the road to peace was built.

He said the United Nations must learn the language of cooperation, not condemnation; it must encourage, not discourage. The United Nations was involved in efforts to energize the peace process. The parties were taking steps towards progress, and the United Nations resolution with its call for a conference on implementation of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention would make the work of the negotiating parties more difficult, not easier. The resolution would not achieve the goal it sought, which was why the United States would vote against it.

AHMAD KAMAL (Pakistan) said measures aimed at changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, had no legal validity and must be rescinded. The deportation of local inhabitants from the occupied territories constituted a serious violation of international conventions. It was also a flagrant and unacceptable violation of The Hague resolutions of 1907, the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the Declaration of Principles, as well as the subsequent agreements concluded between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Pakistan strongly condemned all those actions and policies.

He said his country had steadfastly supported the just struggle for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It believed that Al-Quds Al-Sharif, occupied since 1967 by Israel, was the core issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It remained central to any comprehensive settlement, and no lasting peace in the region would be possible without the return of Al-Quds and all occupied territories to the Palestinian people.

It was now incumbent upon the Assembly to do what the Security Council had failed to do, and ensure that the process was not undermined because of the provocative and irresponsible actions of Israel.

IBRAHIM SAID AL-ADOUFI (Yemen) said the Israeli Government was to be condemned for its refusal to respond to the recommendations of the Assembly and the Security Council. Yemen called on Israel to cease construction of its illegal settlements in Jebal Abu Ghneim and other parts of the occupied territories -- actions which were in grave violation of Council resolutions. The international community should also call on Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention. It had become clear how the current Israeli Government undermined the peace process and the policy of land for peace. Israel's establishment of settlements, confiscation of properties detention of scores of people were all in violation of international laws.

He said Israel had not complied with its commitments to the Palestinian people. The current situation was particularly grave at a time when the world was seeking peace. The continuation of the aggressive action towards the Palestinian people must end. He called on Switzerland to make the necessary preparations for a conference to which the Palestinian Authority should be invited. He also called on the international community to bring pressure on the Israeli Government to abide by relevant United Nations resolutions.

KHIPHUSIZI JOSIAH JELE (South Africa) said that, despite clear condemnation by the General Assembly and the international community, the Israeli Government had persisted in constructing illegal settlements. The Assembly had underscored that actions by Israel amounted to a unilateral attempt to change the legal status of Jerusalem, an issue to be discussed at a later time. The Israeli Government also rejected the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

He said South Africa supported the Palestinian people because it believed peace in the Middle East could be achieved only when they had won their rights. The existing peace agreements must be implemented quickly and the stalled peace process should be rescued. The General Assembly must remain seized of the matter; violations of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions could not be allowed to continue with impunity. South Africa intended to vote in favour of the resolution because it would send a clear message that the international community was determined to put the peace process back on track.

MARTIN ANDJABA (Namibia) said his delegation had emphasized that it was not possible to divorce the complete nationhood of the Palestinian people from a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. It was concerned that thousands of Palestinians in the occupied territories continued to live under abhorrent conditions, while others were said to remain in Israeli prisons, subjected to torture and other mistreatment. The Israeli authorities were attempting to alter the political geographical setting of East Jerusalem in its favour.

He said resolutions ES-10/2 and ES-10/3 from the emergency special session remained valid, and Namibia called on the Israeli Government to implement them. He supported the recommendation to convene a conference on measures to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention. The PLO should be involved in the preparation such a conference. Both parties should return to the negotiating table and recommit themselves to a peaceful settlement.

MOHAMMAD A. ABULHASAN (Kuwait) said Assembly resolutions ES-10/2 and ES-10/3 indicated that Israel should immediately stop building settlements and refrain from illegal activities against the Palestinian people in East Jerusalem. They also demanded that Israel respect the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Israeli Government was continuing its intransigence and lack of respect for the will of the international community and Assembly resolutions. The Assembly should condemn Israel's actions.

He said the Secretary-General's report indicated that there was clear international agreement to convene a conference on measures to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention. Kuwait supported those calling for such a conference. It condemned Israel's continued violations of relevant United Nations resolutions, particularly its construction of new settlements in East Jerusalem. It also called on the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention and on Switzerland to start the necessary preparations for a conference. The United Nations should continue its important role in the peace process.

Israel should stop undermining the peace process and implement relevant Security Council resolutions fully and completely. It should withdraw immediately from southern Lebanon. The world had witnessed Israel's failure to meet the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinian people. The Member States should support the current draft resolution and implement it as soon as possible.

MIKHAIL WEHBE (Syria) said practices inherent in Israeli policies violated the rights of Palestinian people, including those in Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan. Numerous resolutions of the United Nations had not prevented Israel from disregarding the will of the international community, and persistently working against a just and lasting peace. Israel was not a peace-loving State; it was defying international law.

He said Israel was persisting in building settlements without regard for Security Council resolutions, which had condemned those activities. In Jebal Abu Ghneim, the bulldozers were still at working, despite calls, including one from the United States, for such activity to end. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had recently confirmed that the Golan was a vital zone for Israeli security. The peace process was at an impasse, due to the Israeli Government's disregard for the will of the international community. Israeli practices sought to break away from past agreements and commitments, and to abolish the Madrid peace process. Prime Minister Netanyahu was disregarding the policy of land for peace.

He said security was the result of peace, which was not possible without dignity and justice. Israel's persistence in its erroneous concepts, while its occupation continued, would turn the peace into a mutual bloodbath and not bring security. Israel had a history of State terrorism, the latest example of which was the recent assassination attempt in Jordan. The Arab countries had declared on various occasions their objection to terrorism. Syria cherished a just and lasting peace, based on relevant Council resolutions and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention should agree to the convening of a conference as soon as possible.

CARIDAD YAMIRA CUETO MILIAN (Cuba) said the constant in Israel's policy was the violation of the people and territory of Palestine. Cuba supported a lasting peace in the Middle East and was in favour of a return of all the Arab territories by Israel. The international community must condemn Israel for its flagrant violations of all decisions and resolutions by the international community.

She said Israel must put an end to its policies of expanding the illegal settlements which led to the destruction and demolition of many Palestinian homes. It must also cease detentions and economic policies that violated the principles of international law. It was necessary to take measures to protect the Palestinian people, international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Her country supported the Conference of the High Contracting Parties of the Convention, which was a source of international law, coexistence of nations and human dignity, and must be respected.

SYLVIE JUNOD, observer for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said the organization's humanitarian activities in Israel and the occupied territories included visiting detainees, restoring contact between separated family members and providing medical assistance. The ICRC had always called on the Israeli Government to comply with provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and always affirmed its applicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. Israel remained bound to the Convention. The ICRC repeatedly noted disregard for international humanitarian law, such as the transfer of parts of the population of the occupied territories into Israeli territory, and was concerned about it. Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulated that the parties must respect the Convention in all circumstances. The States decided on the means and methods. International responses to humanitarian problems should be assessed in view of the practical results that might be achieved. The ICRC was free of political motivations and impartial, to carry out its mandate.

JENO C.A. STAEHELIN, Permanent Observer of Switzerland, said there was a lack of consensus on the convening of a conference between parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Consultations had not succeeded in indicating what goals such a conference should achieve. However, a majority of States parties to the Convention had called for a conference. Only a few were against, and serious concerns were raised, that such a conference might damage efforts to advance the peace process; that it was necessary to carefully prepare such a conference; and that alternative or prior steps might be taken before the conference. Switzerland agreed with some of those concerns. International law and humanitarian action must not be politicized. The top priority for any initiative must be a strengthening of the peace process on the ground.

He said Switzerland had agreed to a proposal by the twenty-sixth Conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent to organize periodic meetings to examine general humanitarian problems. No political issues would be discussed at those meetings. The first one would take place in January, and would be a forum of non-political dialogue between States. Switzerland also supported any initiative that would improve the situation on the ground.

There was no alternative to the peace process. The proposed conference could not be effective unless all the interested parties participated. Such a conference must be carefully prepared, and time must be taken in the preparation to ensure its success. Switzerland reminded the Contracting Parties to respect their commitments to international humanitarian law and facilitate the activities of the ICRC. Switzerland was committed to three goals: non-politicization of humanitarian aid, support of the peace process, and improvement of the situation on the ground.

The representative of Jordan introduced the draft resolution and announced that Brunei Darussalam, Pakistan and Viet Nam had joined the list of co-sponsors. He then read out amendments to the text.

An eleventh preambular paragraph to be added, to read as follows:

"recalling its rejection of terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions and declarations".

Operative paragraph 5 to be amended, to read as follows: "recommends to the Government of Switzerland, in its capacity as depository of the Geneva Convention, to undertake the necessary steps, including the convening of a meeting of experts in order to follow up on the above mentioned recommendation, with a target date of, but not later than, the end of February 1998."

Explanations of vote

MOSES M. DLAMINI (Swaziland) said that since the Madrid Conference there was a genuine agreement which had been endorsed by the parties in the conflict. His country had been waiting for the two parties to come together to honour the Madrid Accord. Negotiating meant standing in the middle and arbitrating on an issue of conflict. No one could win a war, but when parties talked they finally agreed. His country would, thus, abstain from voting.

ROBERT R. FOWLER (Canada) said the draft resolution reflected his country's concerns regarding the ongoing construction of a new settlement in Jebal Abu Ghneim/Har Homa. It was contrary to international law and harmful to the peace process.

Canada's policy was that the Fourth Geneva Convention did apply to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem. As a High Contracting Party, its decision about the merits of convening the conference would be made after a full examination of the necessity and possible outcome of such a conference, as well as cost implications and, of course, full consultations with other High Contracting Parties.

He said Canada believed it was incumbent on the parties to honour and fully implement their existing agreements. That commitment must include a determined effort on the part of the Palestinian leadership to combat terrorism.

MASAKI KONISHI (Japan) said he would vote in favour of the draft because his country agreed with the general thrust of the resolution on the construction activities in East Jerusalem. It was concerned, however, that the Conference of the High Contracting Parties for Fourth Geneva Convention would have a negative effect on the peace process. It was Japan's hope that Palestine and Israel could bring the peace process to the table.

HANS JACOB BIORN LIAN (Norway) said the emergency special session of the General Assembly was not conducive to progress in the peace process, and his Government had reservations about many elements in the draft resolution. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the parties themselves to move the peace process forward and implement the peace agreements.

However, Norway was deeply concerned about Israel's settlement activities in the Palestinian areas. Unilateral steps were not in the spirit of the agreements between the two sides and contrary to international law. That was why Norway would vote in favour of the resolution.

Action on Draft

The Assembly then adopted the resolution, as orally revised, by a vote of 139 in favour to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States), with 13 abstentions. (See Annex.)

JOHN CRIGHTON (Australia) said settlement activity was unhelpful to the peace process. His Government urged the concerned parties to commit themselves to the process. He abstained on the draft because there was no substitute to direct talks between the parties themselves.

Mr. WEHBE (Syria) said his delegation voted in favour of the resolution and supported the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Syria wanted to resume the peace process from the point it had reached in Washington. Israel must respect commitments made by previous Israeli governments. Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories were illegal, ran counter to international law and violated relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. The draft resolution adopted today affirmed the responsibility of the United Nations vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the Palestinian question at its core. The peace process was stalled because the present Israeli Government abandoned the peace process. Syria regretted the preambular paragraph in the draft which concentrated on occupied Palestinian territories, rather than all occupied Arab territories. Another of the preambular paragraphs should have concentrated on Israeli settlement activities. He said the Arab countries were against terrorism and made a distinction between terrorism and legitimate struggle.

DAVID PELEG (Israel) said the resolution adopted today would not bring the parties together, but rather would continue to provide an excuse for those who wished to see the issue dealt with by fiat in international forums, rather than by direct bilateral talks. The Assembly had not done itself credit by gathering every few months to pass an outdated resolution which had no effect whatsoever on the actual workings of the peace process.

The recommendation contained in the resolution concerning the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention was especially regrettable, since it politicized an essential humanitarian instrument. That would set a dangerous precedent which undermined the Convention and efforts to implement it. For those reasons, Israel voted against the resolution.

HAE-JIN CHUN (Republic of Korea) said there had not been much progress in the peace process, despite recent efforts. The situation on the ground continued unchanged and Israeli settlement activity had not ceased. Those activities should end immediately and all sides should negotiate all issues openly and candidly. There was a risk that the momentum of the peace process would be lost. He had, therefore, voted in favour of the resolution.

Right of Reply

Mr. PELEG (Israel), speaking on right of reply, referred to this morning's statement made by the representative of Egypt, on events leading to the June 1967 war and Israel's subsequent presence in the territories. He said Israel's presence in territories was a result of having to fight a war of self-defence thrust on it by both the actions and rhetoric of a number of Arab leaders at the time, mostly notably the then President of Egypt, Abdul Nasser. He said Israel wanted to set the record straight, hopefully for the last time, on the words of aggression and violence that emanated from Cairo in those days.

He then read exerts from Radio Cairo on 17 May 1967 by President Nasser who said "Egypt, with all her resources -- human, economic and scientific -- is prepared to plunge into a total war which will be the end of Israel." On that day, he went on, Egypt demanded the immediate withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force from its buffer positions between Egypt and Israel, and the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Unfortunately, Secretary-General Thant acquiesced to that demand. Then Nasser ordered 100,000 troops to enter Sinai and take up positions formerly held by United Nations forces. Other Arab countries committed forces and encircled Israel in a ring of

Israel wanted to remind the Assembly that but for such aggressive action, there would have been no war in 1967, and Israel would not at present be in the territories, and Member States would not be debating the issue. Israel remained committed to peace with its neighbours and called on the Palestinians and others who were party to the peace process to join in redoubling efforts to achieve peace.

HOSSAM ZAKI (Egypt) said Israel had quoted some media comments made 30 years ago on Cairo Radio well before the establishment of peace. There was no point in saying that the Cairo broadcasts were a provocation to war, since there was also an endless list of propaganda coming from Israel.

He had a problem understanding the Israeli representative's statement that if the provocation had not occurred, Israel would not have occupied the territories. Israeli comments indicated its particular attachment and, therefore, right to that land. The war was either one for "a right" or a matter of self-defence. Egypt had started peace in the region and worked tirelessly to establish it among all countries, including Israel. It should not, therefore, be subjected to such statements.

NASSER AL-KIDWA, Observer for Palestine, said he wished to express the gratitude of the Palestinian people and its leadership to all Member States who had supported the resolution. Despite the reluctance of some parties, his delegation was still proud of the just and clear decision which had been adopted by the majority.


Vote on Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied Palestine Territory

The draft resolutions on illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, as revised (document A/ES-10/L.3), was adopted by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 3 against, with 13 abstentions:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against: Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States.

Abstain: Australia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Georgia, Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Romania, Rwanda, Swaziland, Uzbekistan and Zambia.

Absent: Cambodia, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Palau, Panama, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media - not an official record