text: Abstaining: Belgium, Canada, Hungary, Iraq, Madagascar, Sweden. The representative of Bulgaria stated that his delegation was not participating in the vote. 202. Statements in explanation of vote after the vote were made by the representatives of Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, India, Italy (on behalf of the member States of the European Economic Community) and Sweden. 203. Statements relating to the draft resolution were made by the Observers for Cambodia and Viet Nam. 204. For the text as adopted, see chapter II, section A, resolution 1990/9. 205. On 9 February 1990, a draft resolution (E/CN.4/1990/L.2) was submitted by Cuba, Nicaragua* and Viet Nam*. 206. On 14 February 1990, a revised draft resolution (E/CN.4/1990/L.2/Rev.l) was submitted by Cuba, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya* and Nicaragua*. The text of the revised draft resolution was identical with that of draft resolution E/CN.4/1990/L.2. 207. On 15 February 1990, a revised draft resolution (E/CN.4/1990/L.2/Rev.2) was submitted by Cuba, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya*, Nicaragua* and Viet Nam*. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1990/L.2/Rev.1 was revised as follows: (a) In operative paragraph 1, the words "the continued intervention in Panama by the armed forces of the United States of America", were replaced with the words "the foreign military intervention in Panama"; (b) Operative paragraph 2 which read: "Demands that the intervention should cease immediately and that the armed forces of the United States should withdraw from Panama", was replaced. -207-208. At the 32nd meeting on 20 February 1990, the representative of Cuba introduced revised draft resolution E/CN.4/1990/L.2/Rev.2. 209. At the same meeting, the following oral amendments to draft resolution E/CN.4/1990/L.2/Rev.2 were proposed by the representative of the United States of America: "(a) Insert a new first preambular paragraph as follows: Bearing in mind the purposes of the United Nations, including, inter alia, that of developing respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples;
analysis: The text appears to be a record of a United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting, discussing a draft resolution related to foreign military intervention in Panama. The language used is formal and diplomatic, with a focus on international relations and human rights. The topic of intervention in Panama suggests a connection to international politics and conflict resolution.