UVA Law Logo Mobile

UN Human Rights Treaties

Travaux Préparatoires

A/C.3/42/SR.61

Summary record of the 61st meeting : 3rd Committee, held on Friday, 27 November 1987, New York, General Assembly, 42nd session.

Extracted Text

United Nations THIRD COMMITTEE GENERAL 61st meeting ASSEMBLY Friday, 27 November 1987 FORTY-SECOND SESSION at 10 a.m. New York Official Records* SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 61st MEETING Chairman: Mr. RITTER (Panama) CONTENTS AGENDA ITEM 12: REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL (continued) A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Page 2 The meeting was called to order at 10.35 a.m. AGENDA ITEM 12: REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL (continued) (A/C.3/42/L. 2, L.5, r,.8, L.40, L.48, L.70-72, L.76, L.81-83, L.85/Rev.l, L.86, L.88, L.90, L.91) Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.71 1. The CHAIRMAN announced that Chile, the only sponsor of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.71 on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Mexico, had decided to withdraw it. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.2 2. Mr. MOTSIK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that on the basis of the extensive consultations held, and in view of the difficulties which had arisen with respect to the draft resolution on promotion of the universal recognition of, and respect for, the rights of peoples, their equality and dignity (A/C.3/42/L.2), his delegation would not insist that the Committee should consider it. 3. The CHAIRMAN said that, if there were no objections, be would take it that the Committee decided not to take action on draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.2. 4. It was so decided. Draft resolutions A/C.3/42/L.5, L.90 5. Mr. GALAL (Egypt) proposed the following amendments to draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.5. He suggested that the words "and peoples" should be added at the end of the first preambular paragraph. At the end of the second preambular paragraph, the phrase "based on the values and morality which have developed through the ages of human suffering and the fight against all types of vices and evils" should be added. In the fifth preambular paragraph, he suggested that, in the second line, after the words "specific programmes", the words "morally oriented" should be added. He proposed that, at the end of each of the two amendments submitted by the Netherlands (A/C.3/42/L.90), the expression "if they are based on values of religion and morality" should be added. 6. It was very difficult Cor Egypt to accept that certain groups which were in an anomalous situation or which had committed reprehensible acts should be given the sane protection as that given to the family. The amendments proposed by Egypt were based on principles common to all religions and values recognized by all peoples. 7. Mrs. UMANA (Colombia), referring to the amendments contained in document A/C.3/42/L.90, 3aid that Colombia, a profoundly Catholic country, would have no difficulty in accepting them. A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Page 3 8. Mr. ZAWACKI (Poland), supported by Mr. TROUVEROY (Belgium), Mr. ALVAREZ VITA (Peru) and Mrs. MUKHERJEE (India), said that ' text of the draft resolution under consideration had already been considered by • Commission for Social Development and by the Economic and Social Council. The wording was well-balanced and was the result of compromise. He therefore proposed that it should not be changed. 9. Mr. BYKOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.5 demonstrated the importance attached by various countries to the family as the basic unit of society. Its text corresponded to the consensus reached on the item, and it should not be changed. 10. Mr. HAMER (Netherlands) said that, from what the representative of Egypt had said, it could be inferred that some situations provided for and accepted by the laws of the Netherlands were reprehensible acts. In the Netherlands, there were many religious people) however, Netherlands legislation was national in character and separate from religion. Nevertheless, in view of the difficulties resulting from the amendments submitted by the Netherlands, his delegation had decided to withdraw them. 11. Mr. GALAL (Egypt) withdrew his oral amendments to draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.5. 12. Mr. LINDHOLM (Sweden) proposed that, in the text of paragraph 3 of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.5, the expression "as a matter of high priority" should be deleted. 13. The CHAIRMAN said that, if there were no objections, he would take it that the Committee wished to postpone its decision on draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.5. 14. It was so decided. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.8 15. The CHAIRMAN informed the Committee that the delegations of Cote d'lvoire, Morocco and Zaire had requested that the consideration of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.8 should be postponed until the forty-third session of the General Assembly. If there were no objections, he would take it that the Committee agreed to that request. 16. It was so decided. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.40 17. The CHAIRMAN said that Samoa had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.40, 18. Mrs. ALVAREZ (Dominican Republic) said that her country, which fervently supported respect for human rights, strongly condemned violations of those rights, wherever they occurred. However, it was a matter of serious concern to her delegation that the Item concerning human rights was being used as a political A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Pag* 4 (Mrs. Alvarez, Dominican Republic) weapon in the struggle between various centres of power. That type of approach prevented attention from being focused on the humanitarian aspects which would improve the human rights situation in certain countries. 19. The Dominican Republic was also concerned that the human rights question was being presented as if it had no connection with economic and social progress. In the absence of domestic and external peace, public freedoms, structural changes or social development, the peoples could not fully exercise their economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. The resolutions concerning human rights violations must be considered objectively and constructively, without political motives. 20. For those reasons, her delegation would not participate in the vote on draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.40, or in the votes on draft resolutions A/C.3/42/L.48, L.62 and L.88. 21. Mr. BYKOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the situation of human rights in Afghanistan was benefiting from the policy of national reconciliation which the Government of that country had been applying since early 1987, with prudence and good will, in order to end the violence and achieve peace through dialogue with the opposition, within and outside the country, and establishment of a coalition Government. The Soviet Union supported the Afghan Government's efforts to expand the social base of transformations in that country: the United Nations must recognize the importance of the national reconciliation plan for putting an end to the Afghan people's sufferings. 22. The Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights had said in his report (A/42/667) that the Government of Afghanistan was doing everything possible to ensure the genuine exercise of the population's civil and political rights, as well as their economic, social and cultural rights. The invitation issued to the Special Rapporteur to visit Afghanistan had likewise constituted a positive step. The report made it possible to appreciate the co-operation shown by the authorities of Afghanistan and the freedom with which the Special Rapporteur had been able to carry out his task. It also recorded a number of positive facts relating to the human rights situation. 23. However, the draft resolution made no objective appraisal of the Special Rapporteur's report or of the changes for the better which he had recorded. Those factors, put together, made draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.40 tendentious and one-sided, and scarcely conducive to a peaceful solution of the problem. 24. There were States which persisted in interfering in Afghanistan's internal affairs, even resorting to armed intervention, and refused, because of their own political interests, to take a hand in settling the issue. It was well known who was arming the gangs which were attacking Afghanistan. But the draft resolution ignored the true origin of the situation! it failed to mention who was financing the armed gangs and made no reference at all to the crimes and the human rights violations they committed. Therefore, his delegation would vote against the draft resolution. /... A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Page 5 25. Mr. AKRAM (Pakistan) said that his delegation would vote in favour of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.40 despite the reservations it had about certain parts of the text. In particular, the reference to some improvements in some aspects of the human rights situation in Afghanistan was incorrect: on the contrary, military operations by the foreign forces had been stepped up and the number of victims of human rights violations had increased. 26. The Government of Afghanistan, for its cart, was waging a propaganda campaign designed to mask the true situation. A part of that campaign was the "national reconciliation plan", rejected by the vast majority of the country's people: the inescapable reality gave the lie to its alleged success. In Pakistan's view, the sole cause of human rights violations in Afghanistan was the intervention and military operations of foreign forces. Pakistan hoped, therefore, that those forces, would be withdrawn and the Afghan people enabled to exercise their right to self-determination. 27. Mr. BOLD (Mongolia) said that Mongolia would vote against draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.40. Firstly, it failed to explain clearly that the violations of human rights in Afghanistan atemmed from the undeclared war being waged against the Government by mercenaries, with the support of foreign Powers. Secondly, it ignored the measures adopted by the Government to end the fratricidal struggle and establish conditions in which all Afghans could enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms. One example of the policy of reconciliation was the new Constitution and the national discussion of it. The draft resolution lacked objectivity, impartiality and realism and would contribute nothing to improving the human rights situation in Afghanistan. 28. Mrs. OMASA (Colombia) said that she would vote in favour of the draft resolution but reserved the right to explain her vote in the plenary, since she viewed with disquiet the hypocrisy which governed the Third Committee's deliberations on human rights. 29. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia. Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d'lvoire, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Prance, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland,. Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela. /... A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Page 6 Against: Algeria, Angola, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cuba Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, German Democrat •. Republic, Hungary, India, Lao People's Democratic Rapublic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Poland, Romania, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Viet Nam. Abstaining: Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Paso, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Congo, Cyprus, Bouador, Finland, Ghana, Iraq, Kuwait, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Republic of Tanazania, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. 30. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.40 was adopted by 85 vote* to 21, with 28 abstention*. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.48 31. The CHAIRMAN said that Samoa had been added to the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.48. 32. Mr. WIRYONO (Indonesia) said that both the draft resolution under consideration and draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.88 infringed the sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction of the States in question) moreover, Indonesia had misgivings a about the institution of the Special Rapporteur. As a result, Indonesia would vote against draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.48. 33. Mr. AKRAM (Pakistan) moved, under rule 116 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, adjournment of the debate on draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.48. The Islamic Republic of Iran had said that it would invite the Special Representative to examine the situation In that country provided that the Assembly took no decision relating to the draft resolution under consideration. A visit to that country by the Special Representative would enable a decision to be taken based on facts, not on mere denunciation*. 34. Mrs. MUKHERJEE (India) and Mr. ABOU-HADIP (Syrian Arab Republic) supported the motion by Pakistan. 35. Mr. SCHWANDT (Federal Republic of Germany) said that, as on previous occasions, he was opposed to an adjournment, since it would prevent the international community from adopting a position on the subject. 36. Mr. TROUVEROY (Belgium) said that he was opposed to the Pakistan motion. He recalled that the Iranian authorities had begun to co-operate with the Organization only as a result of insistent calls by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. /... A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Page 7 37. A recorded vote was taken on the Pakistan motion. In favour: Algeria, Angola, China, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Oman,. Pakistan. Romania, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania. Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belise, Botswana, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'lvoire, Denmark, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Iraq, I gland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United states of America, Venezuela. Abstaining: Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Cyprus, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. 38. The Pakistan motion was rejected by 57 votes to 19, with 37 abstentions. 39. Miss TAN (Singapore) said that Singapore would abstain in the vote on draft resolutions A/C.3/42/L.48, L.62 and L.88 because it was opposed to the selective condemnation of small countries. It had voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.40 only because it considered the situation in Afghanistan an completely different. The human rights violations in that country were due to armed aggression and foreign occupation. 40. A recorded vote was taken by on draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.48. In favour: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Botswana, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'lvoire, Denmark, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela. /... A/C.3/42/SK.61 English Page 8 Against: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania. Abstaining: Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Cyprus, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, India, Japan, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. 41. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.48 was adopted by 58 votes to 22, with 42 abstentions. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.70 42. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.70 was adopted without a vote. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.72 43. Mr. SEIFU (Ethiopia) said that his delegation could not support the United States amendment (A/C.3/42/L.91) to draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.72 because it was out of context. 44. The draft resolution was concerned essentially with refugees and returns, not with the victims of drought or natural disasters. for a number of years the Second Committee had been considering resolutions specifically on assistance to victims of drought. If the Third Committee took up that question, it would have to take into account a wide variety of considerations and refer to the various international bodies which provided that kind of assistance. 45. With regard to the substance of the United States amendment, he wondered who were "all parties", referred to in the first line, who were the civilians referred to in the fourth line, who disrupted the movement of convoys of humanitarian assistance and why there was no mention of returnees. 46. He proposed, under rule 116 of the rules of procedure of the Assembly, that the amendment (A/C.3/42/L.91) should not be considered at the present Assembly session. 47. Mr. OGURTSOV (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) and Mrs. OLENDE (Kenya) supported the Ethiopian proposal. 48. Mr. SCHWANDT (Federal Republic of Germany) and Miss BYRNE (United States of America) opposed it. A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Page 9 49. A recorded vote was taken on the Ethiopian proposal. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Colombia, Congo, Cote d’lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela. Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burma, Comoros, Ecuador, Fiji, Gabon, Greece, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Nepal, Oman, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay. 50. The Ethiopian proposal was adopted by 57 votes to 31, with 32 abstentions. 51. At the request of the representative of the United States of America a recorded vote was taken on draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.72. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malte, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Page 10 Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Column Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Mam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: None. Abstaining: Saudi Arabia, United States of America. 52. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.72 was adopted by 137 votes to none, with 2 abstentions. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.76 53. The SECRETARY informed the Committees that in the second line of paragraph 11 of the English text of document A/C.3/42/S.81 the figure "9" should be replaced by the figure "10". 54. A recorded vote was take on draft resolution A/C3/42/L.76. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, C6te d'lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vict Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Page 11 Against: United States of America. Abstaining: Canada, Germany, Federal Republic of, United Kingdom of Great *** and Northern Ireland. 55. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.76 was adopted by 132 votes to 1, with 3 abstentions. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.82 56. The CHAIRMAN informed the Committee that the delegations of Ecuador and Samoa had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.82. 57. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.82 was adopted without a vote. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.83 58. The CHAIRMAN informed the Committee that Samoa had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.83. 59. Miss BYRNE (United States of America) said that the United States was also joining the sponsors. 60. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.83 was adopted without a vote. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.85/Rev.l 61. Mr. CLEARY (Canada) announced that Samoa had joined the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.85/Rev.l. He outlined the changes that had been made in draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.85 in order to reach a consensus, and pointed out that in draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.85/Rev.1, the first line of the eighth preambular paragraph had been redrafted on the following lines: "Recalling that the General Assembly at its forty-first session took note of the recommendations and conclusions contained in the report of the Group of Governmental Experts ...'' 62. Mr. LY (Senegal) expressed his delegation's surprise at the difficulty in reachinq *** on the draft resolution. In 1986 the General Assembly had approved resolution 41/70. The same spirit should prevail at the current session. He hoped that the consultations at the next session would be broader and would not jeopardize the balance that had been so difficult to achieve. 63. Draft resolution A/42/L.85/Rev.l was adopted without a vote. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.86 65. Mrs. FLORES (Cuba) said that the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.86 had no difficulty in deleting operative paragraph 2 because operative paragraph 1 contained the basic idea of the draft resolution. Moreover, it was based A/C.3/42/SR.61 English Page 12 (Mrs. Flores, Cuba) essentially on resolution 41/152, which had been adopted at the forty-first session without a vote, and resolution 40/100 which had been adopted by an overwhelming majority. 65. Miss BYRNE (United States of America) recalled that in 1986 the United States had sponsored the draft resolution on the improvement of social life, but the draft resolution submitted at the current session (A/0.3/42/L.86) contained elements which obliged her delegation to vote against it. Moreover, It failed to reflect the general interest in contributing to recreational and cultural activities, which the United States shared with the principal sponsor, and which was clearly reflected in the spirit of co-operation at the Pan-American Games in Indianapolis. 66. A recorded vote was taken on draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.86, as orally amended. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bsnglsdesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mall, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Aqainst: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining; Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Spain, Sweden. 67. Draft resolution A/C.3/42/L.86, as orally amended, was adopted by 111 votes to 18, with 7 abstentions. The meeting rose at 1 p.m.