|
GA/DIS/3241 |
|
|
RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UNITED STATES CALLED ON TO REDUCE NEW YORK, 28 October (UN Headquarters) -- The General Assembly, concerned by the thousands of nuclear weapons still deployed and stockpiled, would call on the Russian Federation and United States to start talks on a verifiable agreement to significantly reduce non-strategic nuclear weapons, according to one of seven draft resolutions approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), as it continued its consideration of all draft texts. The new text, approved by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 38 abstentions, would also have the Assembly agree that the reduction and elimination of those weapons was an integral part of the nuclear-arms reduction and disarmament process, and that their transport and storage required special security and physical protection measures. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.) Speaking after the vote, the Russian Federation's representative said that reducing and limiting nuclear weapons was a priority of his Government, and he highlighted steps already undertaken in that regard since 1991. Russia was ready to continue to move further forward in implementing the relevant agreements, but significant differences persisted about the role of non-strategic nuclear weapons in national security doctrines. He agreed with the main thrust of the draft, but had been unable to support it owing to some of its premature proposals. The representative of the United States, also speaking to France and the United Kingdom, said he was fully committed to dealing with non-strategic nuclear weapons and to implementing the final document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), but it was up to each State to decide how to do so. The text took a fundamentally flawed approach to that important question and failed to take into account successful alternative approaches. Acting without a vote this morning, the Committee approved a draft resolution by which the Assembly, convinced that the internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free status of Mongolia would enhance regional stability, would welcome the efforts made by Member States to cooperate with Mongolia in implementing the relevant resolution of its fifty-fifth session, as well as progress made in consolidating Mongolia’s international security. By a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, Monaco, United Kingdom), the Committee approved a draft of the Non-Aligned Movement , which would have the Assembly ask the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be established in 2003, to report at the fifty-ninth session on recommendations for reappraising the relationship between disarmament and development in the current international context, as well as the future role of the Organization in that connection (Annex II). Recalling with satisfaction the decision by the Second Review Conference, on 21 December 2001, to extend the scope of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols to include armed conflicts of a non-international character, the Assembly would call upon all States to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and its Protocols, as well as the amendment of article 1 extending the scope of the Convention, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to those instruments at an early date. The Committee approved the draft on the Convention, formally known as Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, without a vote. Also without a vote, the Committee approved texts on: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa; convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament; and developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security. At the conclusion of today's meeting, certificates were awarded to the disarmament fellows for 2002. Congratulating the new fellows, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala, expressed pleasure that the United Nations Programme of Fellowships on Disarmament had succeeded in training young diplomats in disarmament, especially from developing countries. He reminded delegates and fellows alike that disarmament could no longer be "business as usual", and required new initiatives and imaginative approaches. The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 29 October, to continue its consideration of drafts. Background The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met today to continue action on draft resolutions and decisions. It had before it drafts concerning the following topics: reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons; Mongolia’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status; and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Action was also expected on texts that involved the following themes: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa; the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament; developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security; and the relationship between disarmament and development. According to a draft resolution originally sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition entitled "Reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons" (document A/C.1/57/L.2/Rev.1), the General Assembly would agree that the further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be accorded priority and that the reduction and elimination of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be included as an integral part of the nuclear-arms reduction and disarmament process. The Assembly would agree further that the reduction of those weapons should be carried out in a transparent and irreversible manner. It also would agree on the importance of preserving, reaffirming, implementing and building upon the 1991 and 1992 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics/Russian Federation on non-strategic nuclear weapons. Under a related provision, the Assembly would agree on the importance of special security and physical protection measures for the transport and storage of non-strategic nuclear weapons. It would call upon the Russian Federation and the United States to codify the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives into a legally binding treaty and to initiate negotiations on an effectively verifiable agreement on significant reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons. [The New Agenda Coalition is a group of seven States -- Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden -- which introduced a resolution at the fifty-third General Assembly calling for a nuclear-weapon-free world.] By a draft resolution sponsored by Mongolia on its international security and nuclear-weapon-free status (document A/C.1/57/L.21/Rev.1), the Assembly would welcome the efforts made by Member States to cooperate with Mongolia in implementing resolution 55/33 S, as well as progress made in consolidating Mongolia’s international security. The Assembly would appeal to Member States of the Asia and Pacific region to support Mongolia's efforts to join the relevant regional security and economic arrangements. Under a draft resolution on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) (document A/C.1/57/L.46), the Assembly would call upon all States that had not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and the Protocols annexed thereto, as amended, as well as the amendment of article 1 extending the scope of the convention, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to those instruments at an early date. It would also call upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to those instruments would be universal. By a further term, the Assembly would call upon all States parties to the Convention that had not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention. It would also call upon them to notify the depository of their consent, at an early date, to be bound by the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and its Protocols to include armed conflicts of a non-international character. The Assembly would additionally encourage the chairman-designate and the group of governmental experts to conduct work expeditiously with a view to submitting recommendations on explosive remnants of war to States parties for consideration at the earliest possible date. A draft resolution on the activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/57/L.15) would have the Assembly reaffirm its support for efforts aimed at promoting regional and subregional confidence-building measures and for the Committee’s programme of work. Additionally, the Assembly would emphasize the need to make the early-warning mechanism in Central Africa operational, to prevent, in part, the outbreak of future armed conflicts. It would also appeal to Member States and to governmental and non-governmental organizations to make additional voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund for the implementation of the Committee’s programme of work. According to a draft resolution, sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries on the fourth special session devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/57/L.8/Rev.1), the Assembly would decide to establish an open-ended working group, working on the basis of consensus, to consider the objectives and agenda for that session. It would ask it to meet for an organizational session to set the date for its substantive sessions, and to submit a report on its work, including substantive recommendations, before the end of the current session. By a draft resolution sponsored by the Russian Federation entitled "Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security" (document A/C.1/57/L.1), the General Assembly would call upon Member States to promote further at multilateral levels the consideration of existing and potential threats in the field of information security, as well as possible measures to limit the threats emerging in this field, consistent with the need to preserve the free flow of information. A draft resolution sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/57/L.17) would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be established in 2003, to present a report at the fifty-ninth session with recommendations for reappraising that relationship in the current international context, as well as the future role of the Organization in that connection. It would further ask him to continue to take action for the implementation of the action programme adopted at the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development. Action on Drafts When the meeting opened, the Committee approved the draft resolution on reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.2/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 38 abstentions. (See Annex I.) Speaking after the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation said that the issue of reducing and limiting nuclear weapons remained one of the foremost policies of his Government. Russia, with broad support from the international community, including from the countries of the New Agenda Coalition, had made a significant contribution towards practical nuclear disarmament. He was referring to, among other successes, implementation of START reductions (under the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms) and the signing last May of the new Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (Moscow Treaty). Much had also been done to reduce non-strategic nuclear weapons, as part of unilateral presidential initiatives undertaken in 1991 and 1992. He noted that those included a number of disarmament measures on tactical nuclear weapons. An overwhelming majority of those had already been implemented. Russia had provided detailed information on that during the first preparatory session of the 2005 Review Conference on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Russia was ready to continue to move further forward in implementing the agreements, as part of its further reductions of nuclear weapons. At the same time, the prospects of regulating and reducing non-strategic nuclear weapons by means of international strategies and agreements were still "rather unclear". Also, there were still significant differences regarding the role of non-strategic nuclear weapons in national security and stability doctrines. There was no unified clear criteria that defined the notion of non-strategic nuclear weapons. Also unresolved were the problems relating to the deployment of nuclear weapons in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States. Such issues required thorough and objective consideration by all countries concerned, taking into account his country's well known proposals, in particular the return of nuclear weapons to the national territories of the countries that possessed them and their withdrawal from the composition of tactical aviation. While he shared the general thrust of the draft resolution just approved, a number of its proposals were premature, and he, therefore, had not been ready to support the text. The representative of Finland said he welcomed the broad international recognition of the need for substantive deliberations on non-strategic nuclear weapons in the framework of the NPT. Thus, he accorded high priority to the issues in the draft resolution and appreciated the constructive approach of its sponsors. He looked forward to the 2005 NPT Review Conference. It was in that context that he had been able to support the draft resolution. The representative of China said her country had always supported the complete and thorough destruction of all kinds of nuclear, including non-strategic nuclear weapons, but both the concept and definition of those weapons, as mentioned in the draft, were unclear and would hinder implementation. For those reasons, she had abstained. The United States representative, speaking on behalf of France and the United Kingdom, said he had opposed the draft. Although France and the United Kingdom had no non-strategic nuclear weapons in their arsenals, they wished to be associated with the statement. He voted against the text, but not because he opposed dealing with non-strategic nuclear weapons. On the contrary, he was fully committed to doing so and to the effective implementation of the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. It was up to each State to decide how to implement its conclusions. The draft resolution, however, took a fundamentally flawed approach to that important question and failed to take into account alternative approaches that had borne fruit in the past. Indeed, efforts to tackle that issue were already under way. Since 1991, he noted, the sub-strategic nuclear forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had been significantly reduced, including the elimination of entire categories of such weapons, and none had required the negotiation of formal, legal instruments as envisaged in the draft. The United States and the Russian Federation had also undertaken parallel unilateral initiatives in 1991 and 1992, which had significantly reduced their non-strategic nuclear weapons. The draft selectively quoted from the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference in a way that distorted its language on non-strategic nuclear weapons. One concept missing was the idea, clearly stated in the final document, about steps to be taken by nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promoted national stability and was based on security for all. A formal arms approach to non-strategic nuclear weapons, called for in the draft, would present major problems of definition, verification, issues of access to sensitive facilities, and vast force-level asymmetries, among others, he said. The sponsor's approach was unrealistic and impractical and would have virtually no prospect for success. Nuclear confidence-building measures for non-strategic nuclear weapons were already being discussed with the Russian Federation in the NATO-Russia Council, and transparency had been raised during the first meeting of the United States/Russian Federation Consultative Group for Strategic Security on 20 September and would continue to be addressed. The representative of Canada said he had abstained. His Government's objective was the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons. The current security and ultimate fate of the more than 12,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons in existence warranted discussion and action in this and other multilateral forums. Many elements of the draft were consistent with Canada's long-standing nuclear disarmament policy, but he had abstained owing to Canada's conviction that it was most productive, at present, to focus on the detailed technical aspects of that issue in forums appropriate for such discussions. He would continue to pursue both the technical and broader policy questions over the coming months and would continue a constructive dialogue with the draft's sponsors. The representative of Lithuania said he had also abstained. The final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference contained a commitment by the nuclear-weapon States on the reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the arms reduction process. The subject of the draft could have been framed in that context. A gradual approach that built on the consensus of all States concerned would lead to real progress towards implementing the NPT commitments. He was also concerned about the lack of transparency of the issue. He called for physical protection efforts, transparency, and the reduction of the operational status of non-strategic nuclear weapons systems, as proposed in the draft. The representative of Australia said he supported efforts to rid the world of all kinds of nuclear weapons, but he had a number of substantive difficulties with the text, notably its failure to recognize substantive reductions in non-strategic nuclear weapons, which had occurred over the last decade. Also, the text was not consistent with the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. He also had concerns about the reference in the preambular portion to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Thus, he had abstained. The representative of Lebanon noted that the French translation of the draft had referred, in its preambular paragraph 2, to the 2002 NPT Review Conference, which should be corrected to "2000". The Committee then took up the draft on Mongolia’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status (document A/C.1/57/L.21/Rev.1) and approved it without a vote. Speaking after the vote, the representative of India said her country had extremely close and friendly relations with Mongolia. Expressing pleasure that Mongolia had taken concrete measures to reinforce its nuclear-weapon-free status, such as enacting national legislation, she was also satisfied that it had received support and assurances from nuclear-weapon States. She said that her delegation respected Mongolia’s choice, and her Government was committed to helping Mongolia comfortably maintain its nuclear-weapon-free status. Next, the Committee turned to the draft concerning the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.46), introduced by Sweden. It was approved without a vote. Speaking after the vote, the representative of Malaysia said that, although his Government was not a State Party to the Convention, his delegation had decided to join the consensus. The Committee then turned to the draft on the activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/57/L.15). It was approved without a vote. Next, the Committee took up the draft concerning the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/57/L.8/Rev.1), introduced by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. The representative of South Africa, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, explained revisions that had been made to the text. Specifically, in operative paragraph 1, the phrase "working on the basis of consensus" had been added to describe the open-ended working group that the draft would have the Assembly establish. Additionally, the word "possible" now preceded the phrase "establishment of the preparatory committee". In operative paragraph 2, the word "possible" was used to describe the substantive recommendations that would be included in a report prepared by the open-ended working group. Finally, in operative paragraph 3, the request to the Secretary-General to provide assistance to the group was only expected to be fulfilled "within existing resources". She thanked delegations for their input and hoped that the revisions would lead to a consensus text. It was approved by the Committee without a vote. The next draft to be acted upon was the draft on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/C.1/57/L.1), sponsored by the Russian Federation. It was approved without a vote. The Committee then turned to the draft on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/57/L.17). Speaking before the vote, the representative of France said that the draft was not in sync with the more realistic 1987 consensus on the topic. Also, its description of a symbiotic relationship between disarmament and development did not take into account the concept of security. While acknowledging the benefits of disarmament, he said that there was no simple, automatic link between disarmament and development, as suggested in operative paragraph 5. Additionally, though he welcomed the report submitted by the Secretary-General, including its proposal to establish a group of governmental experts, he insisted that the mandate for that group would need to be spelled out by the Member States. For those reasons, France would abstain. The Committee then proceeded to take action on the draft. It was approved by a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, Monaco, United Kingdom) (Annex II). Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said that, in the past, his delegation had not voted on the draft. However, additional language had been added that required it to vote against it. He continued to believe that disarmament and development were two distinct issues and not necessarily linked. That was why his Government had not participated in the 1987 conference on the topic. The United States, thus, did not feel bound by the declaration found in the conference’s final document. The representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the Western European Group of States, reminded delegates that the draft had been adopted by consensus last year. He added that, although considerable benefits might flow from disarmament, there was no automatic linkage between the savings created by it and the commitment to development. His delegation remained highly committed to cooperation for development, and that was consistently proven by its actions. The representative of Germany said he had voted in favour because both disarmament and development were urgent challenges facing the world today. Both strengthened international peace and security and promoted prosperity throughout the world. However, they were distinct from each other and, thus, had to be pursued independently. While recognizing the benefits of disarmament, he claimed that there was no simple, automatic link with development. Unlike last year’s resolution, the current draft contained a request to the Secretary-General for a report to be presented to the General Assembly. He expected that report to take into account the multi-dimensional connection between disarmament and development. He also hoped it would acknowledge the benefits of regional disarmament. The representative of the United Kingdom said he recognized the benefits of disarmament and the positive impacts it might have on development. However, this year, he had abstained because the draft contained significant new elements. Referring to operative paragraph 2, which requested the Secretary-General to seek assistance from a group of governmental experts in preparing a report that would reappraise the relationship between disarmament and development in the current international context, he expressed concern that such a reappraisal would be general and inconclusive. He, thus, questioned the value of such a group. (Annexes follow) ANNEX I Vote on Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons The draft resolution on reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.2/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 3 against, with 38 abstentions, as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia. Against: France, United Kingdom, United States. Abstaining: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Yugoslavia. Absent: Albania, Bahrain, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kuwait, Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe. (END OF ANNEX I) ANNEX II Vote on Disarmament and Development The draft resolution on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/57/L.17) was approved by a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia. Against: United States. Abstaining: France, Israel, Monaco, United Kingdom. Absent: Albania, Benin, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe. * *** * |
|
