MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE SUBJECT OF FIRST COMMITTEE DRAFT TEXTS
Press Release
GA/DIS/3075
MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE SUBJECT OF FIRST COMMITTEE DRAFT TEXTS
19961118 Committee Also Approves Drafts on Chemical Weapons, Proposed Fourth Special Session of General Assembly Devoted to DisarmamentThe General Assembly would call upon the only State in the Middle East not yet party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to accede to the Treaty without further delay and place all unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, according to a draft resolution approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).
The text, sponsored by Egypt on behalf of the League of Arab States and Malaysia, was approved by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 32 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex II.)
Prior to the draft's approval as a whole, preambular paragraph 6 was approved in a separate vote by 117 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 10 abstentions (Armenia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Fiji, Guatemala, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Nicaragua, Pakistan). That paragraph would have the Assembly recall a decision of the parties to the NPT to urge universal adherence to the Treaty, particularly by States that operated unsafeguarded nuclear facilities (Annex I).
By the terms of a second draft concerning the Middle East, approved by the Committee without a vote, the Assembly would urge all parties to consider practical and urgent steps to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region. It would invite those countries to adhere to the NPT, and place all their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards.
Prior to acting on the draft, the Committee approved an amendment, submitted by Israel, that would have the Assembly note the importance of the "ongoing" bilateral Middle East "peace" negotiations. The amendment was approved by a vote of 61 in favour to 28 against, with 33 abstentions (Annex III).
First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3075 25th Meeting (PM) 18 November 1996
By another draft approved this afternoon without a vote, the Assembly would call upon all States that had not yet done so to sign and/or ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) without delay. It would stress the importance to the Convention that the United States and the Russian Federation, as declared possessors of chemical weapons, be among the original states parties to the Convention.
A second draft on the Chemical Weapons Convention, submitted by Iran, was withdrawn when the co-sponsors of both drafts reached agreement on language concerning the Preparatory Commission for the Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Under the terms of a draft approved by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (Russian Federation), the Assembly would decide, subject to the emergence of a consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene a special session devoted to disarmament in 1999. An exact date on its convening would be set, subject to the outcome of deliberations at the 1997 session of the Disarmament Commission (Annex IV).
Statements were made by the representatives of Poland, Mexico, Israel, Syria, Argentina, Costa Rica, Iran, India, Armenia, Oman, Uruguay, Australia, Marshall Islands, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Ireland (on behalf of the European Union, the Associated States of Central and Eastern Europe, the States of the European Free Trade Area, Cyprus, Iceland, and Norway), Brazil, Russian Federation, Libya, Romania, Mexico, Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia and the United States.
The First Committee, having approved 47 draft resolutions and decisions related to disarmament and international security, will meet again at 10 a.m. Monday, 25 November, to take up the question of Antarctica.
Committee Work Programme
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to complete action on the remaining draft resolutions on its agenda.
Before the Committee are five disarmament texts concerning: the convening of the Fourth Special Session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament; the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East; establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East; biological weapons; and chemical weapons.
A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.11/Rev.2) on the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament would have the Assembly decide, subject to the emergence of a consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene that session in 1999. It would decide, subject to the outcome of deliberations concerning the special session at the 1997 session of the Disarmament Commission, to convene a meeting of the preparatory committee for the special session before the end of the Assembly's current session to set an exact date and decide on organizational matters relating to its convening.
The draft is sponsored by Colombia on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.
A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.27/Rev.2) on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, submitted by Egypt and Malaysia, would have the Assembly call upon the only State in the region that is not yet party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and has not declared its intention to do so, to accede to the Treaty without further delay, and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons and to renounce possession of those weapons, and to place all unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Assembly would also welcome Djibouti's accession to the NPT, as well as Oman's decision to accede to it. The draft is sponsored by Egypt on behalf of Member States which are members of the League of Arab States.
A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.28/Rev.2) on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, sponsored by Egypt, would have the Assembly urge all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of the proposal to establish such a zone, and, as a means of promoting that objective, would invite those countries to adhere to the NPT.
The Assembly would call upon all countries of the region that had not done so, pending the establishment of the zone, to agree to place all their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards. It would note the importance of the bilateral Middle East negotiations and the multilateral Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security. It would invite all countries of the region to declare their support for such a zone, and not to develop, produce, test or
otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit the stationing of those weapons in their territories, or territories under their control.
The nuclear-weapon States and all other States would be invited to render their assistance for such a zone, and to refrain from any action that runs counter to the draft. All parties would be invited to consider ways to contribute to general and complete disarmament and the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. The Secretary-General would be requested to continue consultations with the States of the region and other concerned States in order to move towards establishment of a nuclear- weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
An amendment (A/C.1/51/L.54), submitted by Israel, to the draft on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, would substitute the following paragraph for operative paragraph 4 of the draft: "Notes the importance of the ongoing bilateral Middle East peace negotiations and the activities of the multilateral Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security in promoting mutual confidence and security in the Middle East, including the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone".
By a draft resolution on chemical weapons (document A/C.1/51/L.48/Rev.1) sponsored by Canada, India, Mexico and Poland, the General Assembly would call upon all States that had not yet done so to sign and/or ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) without delay.
Other terms of the text would have the Assembly stress the importance to the Convention that all possessors of chemical weapons or their production or development facilities be among the original parties to it. In that context, the Assembly would stress the importance of the United States and the Russian Federation, as declared possessors of such weapons, of being among the original States parties to the Convention.
The Assembly would urge the Preparatory Commission for the Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to intensify efforts to complete its remaining work.
According to a draft resolution submitted by Iran on the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/51/L.49), the General Assembly would stress the prime importance to the Convention that all States, in particular the two declared possessors of chemical weapons, ratify the Convention before its entry into force. It would recommend that the States parties consider the implications to the full implementation of the Convention in case of its non- ratification by all States, in particular by any one of the two declared possessors of chemical weapons, upon its entry into force. It would urge the early resolution of all remaining substantive issues by the Preparatory Commission for the Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Statements
LUDWIK DEMBINSKI (Poland) requested that the draft resolution on the Chemical Weapons Convention sponsored by his own country, as well as Canada, India and Mexico, be approved without a vote.
ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico), speaking on that draft, said his Foreign Minister had previously voiced concern that after 20 years of negotiations on a Chemical Weapons Convention, the two major possessors of those weapons had so far failed to ratify the Convention. If the Convention were to come into force without the United States and the Russian Federation, it would lose its status and become another exercise in horizontal non-proliferation, thus undermining 20 years of intensive efforts.
He said his delegation, together with that of India, had made an urgent appeal to submit a single draft to the General Assembly. The scope of the Convention was faithfully reproduced in the text, and he hoped for its consensus.
YEHIEL YATIV (Israel) introduced the amendment to the draft resolution on the Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone. He said it was with a deep sense of responsibility that his delegation had to introduce the amendment, a measure of last resort, in order to achieve consensus on the draft. The amendment's wording restored the precise language of the same paragraph of last year's text. The consensus language should be maintained.
He said that Israel's position was well-known, and its consensus for those drafts had been maintained during the past 16 years. Israel could join consensus over the years because it could support the concept of establishing a verifiable nuclear-weapon-free zone in due course. He would join consensus on the basis of an amended draft. If the amendment was not sustained, he would ask for a vote on the draft.
KHALIL ABOU-HADID (Syria) said his country was, and continued to be, one of the leading countries in the region that supported a nuclear-weapon-free region. His country had always advocated serious efforts for the removal of nuclear weapons, given their serious threat to peace and security in the region and worldwide.
Given his country's concern with the risks of nuclear proliferation, it supported the draft on that matter. However, he would have preferred not to include the tenth preambular paragraph in the text, which contained a reference to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), to which Syria was not a party.
Action on Texts
When the Committee turned to the draft resolution on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the representative of Israel expressed regret that the draft was once again on the Committee's agenda, since it sought to engage in an old ritual in order to perpetuate the arraignment of his country in the Committee. The draft continued to directly single out Israel by name. The fact that the name was moved from one part of the draft to another did not change the fact of name-calling.
The substance of the text was still devoid of any concrete subject that was not already included in other drafts, he said. Rather, it was an instrument designed to encourage anti-Israel positions. The current version, unfortunately, omitted any reference to the peace process, which appeared in last year's text, and was therefore not in line with the peace process. Voting in favour of the draft was voting to disregard the peace effort in the Middle East. Could honest brokers in that process raise their hands in favour of the draft? he asked.
The draft would not serve the cause of non-proliferation in the Middle East and it would not serve to build regional confidence and security, he said. There was not one constructive motive behind the draft. He, therefore, called on all to vote against it.
The representative of Argentina said that he did not have instructions on that draft.
The representative of Costa Rica said he was instructed to abstain in the vote on that draft.
The representative of Iran said that the draft was more relevant than those of the past, upon Israel the only non-NPT party to join the Treaty and place its unsafeguarded nuclear weapon program under IAEA safeguards. Israel's accession to the NPT would facilitate establishment of a zone free from nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Those distinctive measures should not become hostage to the so-called peace process, a process which had no prospect of securing peace and security to the region.
In a separate recorded vote, preambular paragraph 6 of the draft on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was approved by a recorded vote of 118 in favour, to 2 against (India, Israel), with 10 abstentions (Armenia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Fiji, Guatemala, Kenya, Krygyzstan, Latvia, Nicaragua, Pakistan). (For details of the vote, See Annex I.)
On a point of order, the representative of the United Kingdom asked the Committee Secretary to read out the text of the paragraph.
The paragraph reads as follows: Recalling also the decision on principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on 11 May 1995, in which the Conference urged universal adherence to the Treaty as an urgent priority and called upon all States not yet party to the Treaty to accede to it at the earliest date, particularly those States that operate unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.
The draft on the whole was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 32 abstentions (Annex II).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of India said he had abstained from voting on the draft as a whole, and voted against preambular paragraph 6 of the text. India was not a party to the NPT, and had no intention of becoming one. Moreover, it did not accept that any State should be singled out for mention.
The representative of Armenia said he had not intended to participate in the vote on preambular paragraph 6.
The representative of Oman said that he had intended to vote in favour of the entire draft.
The representative of Uruguay said that he had maintained his country's abstention on the draft, which should have reflected a regional consensus, because it singled out one State and omitted mention of the Middle East peace process.
The representative of Australia said she had voted in favour of the resolution. She understood the unease of some delegations at the draft's singling out of one country, but the draft was consistent with Australia's position on the NPT and on nuclear-weapon-free zones.
The representative of the Marshall Islands said he had intended not to participate in the voting on preambular paragraph 6 of the draft just approved.
The representative of Iraq said he had supported the draft despite its gaps and deficiencies. Foremost among those deficiencies was the draft's failure to reflect the reality on the ground. The Middle East did not merely face the threat of nuclear proliferation. It faced the threat of Israeli nuclear weapons, of a nuclear arsenal which everybody knew existed and whose threat to regional security was widely acknowledged. He recalled the Security
Council had singled out Israel and called upon it to place all its nuclear facilities under the safeguards regime of the IAEA.
Speaking of the proposed Israeli amendment to the draft on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, which would have the Assembly refer to the "ongoing" Middle East peace process, the representative of Egypt said that his delegation had exemplified restraint in its approach to the draft resolution. He regretted that it had come to this -- that an amendment had been introduced on a draft document in whose elaboration Egypt, in a spirit of compromise and consensus, had been scrupulous to consult with all delegations, including the delegation of Israel. He said negotiations on the draft had been transparent and conducted in full cooperation with all delegations, especially Israel. In that spirit the draft had omitted many ideas dear to his delegation's heart -- and much more accurately reflecting the reality in the region. He added that references to an ongoing peace process, which had been accurate enough three years ago, no longer obtained. The Israeli amendment not only broke the letter of consensus, but the spirit of a consensus which had been achieved by dint of scrupulous, long and arduous consultations with Israel.
The representative of Syria said his country had been among the first in the region to support the concept of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, because Israel was the only country in the region that had not acceded to the NPT and refused to submit its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards. He opposed the amendment now before the Committee, which sought to give the false impression that the bilateral negotiations in the Middle East were moving forward.
The representative of Morocco said that his had been among the first countries to call for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. It had always voted in favour of today's draft, and considered that the text introduced by the representative of Egypt faithfully reflected the realities now prevailing in the Middle East. As everyone knew, there was no ongoing peace negotiation. The amendment proposed by Israel ran counter to the spirit of consensus that had presided over formulation of the Egyptian draft.
The representative of Jordan said that his country had consistently supported the concept of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction -- and above all of nuclear weapons -- in the Middle East. Jordan called on its friends both inside and outside the region to press for a resumption of bilateral negotiations, particularly the Israeli-Lebanon and the Israeli- Syrian negotiating tracks. There had been considerable diplomatic activity aimed solely at getting those talks going again, but the very fact that one wished that they were ongoing was proof that they were not. In the absence of instructions from his Government, he would not participate in voting on the amendment. He wished it could be withdrawn.
The representative of Iran said that his country, which, with Egypt, had been the first to promote the notion of a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East, fully supported the draft. He would have liked to co-sponsor it, but its references to peace negotiations meant that Iran had been unable to join the
sponsors. He supported the contents of the draft, however, and would vote against the Israeli amendment.
The draft amendment to the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East was approved by a recorded vote of 61 in favour to 28 against, with 33 abstentions (Annex III).
The representative of Ireland, speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of the European Union, the associated States of Central and Eastern Europe, and Iceland, said he had voted in favour of the draft amendment. The European Union did not wish to imply by its vote that it was satisfied with the state of peace negotiations in the Middle East. Indeed, the Council of Ministers of the European Union had recently underlined the "deterioration" of those negotiations. But the First Committee was not the place to discuss the issue. In voting in favour of the draft, the States on whose behalf he spoke were voting in favour of a nuclear-weapon-free zone, not casting a vote on the Middle East peace process. Nor should their acceptance of the reference to the peace process imply European Union acceptance of that language in any future negotiation.
The Committee approved the draft on establishment of a nuclear-weapon- free zone in the Middle East, as amended, without a vote.
Speaking in explanation of his position, the representative of Iraq said that he had strong reservations about preambular paragraph 9 and operative paragraph 4 of the draft, which called attention to the so-called peace process and other positive initiatives in the Middle East. All such efforts were at an impasse, and no one could assert otherwise while one State of the region, supported by a super-Power, continued to flout international opinion by its refusal to heed calls for it to accede to the NPT and submit its nuclear facilities to IAEA supervision.
The representative of Israel said that his country had joined the consensus on the draft over the years, since it supported the concept of a nuclear-free zone once peace in the Middle East had been sealed over time.
But Israel had declared its fundamental reservations on the substance and language of the draft. Israel's position was based on its belief that comprehensiveness must be a guiding principle, and that the nuclear issue must be dealt with in the overall context of the peace process and regional security. Practicality dictated the need for a step-by-step approach to nuclear non-proliferation, beginning with building confidence by conventional arms control.
He stressed the primacy of the peace process, which must cover all issues affecting regional security. The situation in the Middle East was not ripe for negotiations on conventional arms, let alone for a nuclear-free zone, he said. Nuclear-weapon-free zones in other parts of the world had been achieved in regions enjoying peaceful mutual relations and economic cooperation and even then, negotiating them had been a long and arduous process. In the Middle East, several States were still on a formal war- footing with Israel. Clearly, many of the prerequisites for a nuclear-free zone were absent. He therefore urged that at this juncture caution and restraint were needed. Rather than lift the nuclear issue out of the regional context, thus threatening a delicate balance, and addressing contentious issues, the aim should be to build overall confidence in the region.
Turning to the draft resolution on the Chemical Weapons Convention, the representative of Iran said that deposition of 65 instruments of ratification had triggered the imminent entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention without ratification by the two declared possessors of those weapons. That had led to some apprehension as to the nature of the Convention. The Preparatory Commission for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had yet to resolve certain outstanding issues, including implementation of article XI of the Convention on the promotion of economic and technical cooperation in the chemical sector, and removal of all trade restrictions.
Several competing draft resolutions had been under consideration, he went on. His delegation, seeking adoption of a single resolution on the issue, had produced a draft based on the views of interested delegations, as well as other States which had enjoyed broad support in the Non-Aligned Movement. After intense consultations, a near consensus draft resolution was tabled. However, one delegation taking part in those consultations had had some reservations on language in the draft urging the signatory States and the Preparatory Commission to intensify efforts to resolve all outstanding issues before entry into force of the Convention. Given the dateline for submitting resolutions, two drafts had been tabled and negotiations continued. His delegation had decided not to insist on its original proposal on the work of the Preparatory Commission and agreed to the language incorporated in the revised second draft resolution as a new operative paragraph 6. He had, therefore, decided not to press for a vote on the original draft he had sponsored.
The representative of Egypt said that his country had traditionally supported such disarmament measures, and therefore sympathized with the general thrust of the draft aimed at ensuring the prohibition and drastic destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, particularly by the two major possessors.
He said that Israel had repeatedly stated that application of such conventions and treaties should include all regional States within a mutually accepted verification regime. His Government shared Israel's view, but in a wider scope that also covered the NPT, to which all States of the Middle East, except Israel, had become party or were about to do so. There needed to be a correct balance between security concerns and needs -- namely, the need for all States in the Middle East to join all conventions and treaties without exception, within a mutually verifiable mechanism.
Egypt, therefore, would refuse to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention until Israel joined the NPT, he said. Israel's approach was selective and narrow in its scope. Despite such considerations, his delegation did not ask for a recorded vote on the draft. However, it did not consider itself part of any consensus today, and expressed a further reservation about operative paragraph 4.
The representative of Brazil asked if the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention was 28 April, 1997, and whether there was any technical reason for that date not being included.
The Committee Chairman asked the draft's sponsor to explain at a later stage.
The representative of Syria said his delegation would abstain in the vote because of some comments on the stockpiles and their destruction. Those measures were not sufficient to guarantee proper verification or inspection. Also, there were no specific references that the economic or technical development of developing countries would not be impeded. The Convention also did not provide general security guarantees punishing any use or threat of use of chemical weapons against any party to the Convention. Such shortcomings reminded him of the NPT, which had not yet become universal, even after entering into force 25 years ago.
The representative of Poland, speaking as a co-sponsor of the draft, said that it would enter into force six months after the sixty-fifth ratification had been deposited by the Secretary-General, which had taken place on 29 October.
The representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation was concerned about adopting an incomplete text and would be grateful for clarification about when the Convention would come into force.
The Director of the Centre for Disarmament Affairs confirmed that the Convention would enter into force 180 days after the deposit of ratification on 29 April 1997. As of that date, the Convention would be in force. The Secretariat would make the appropriate insertion into the draft before it was taken up by the General Assembly.
The representative of Libya said he wished to associate himself completely with the comment made earlier by the representative of Egypt on the chemical weapons draft.
The representative of Romania said his delegation would vote in favour of the draft and had encouraged a single draft from the beginning. It had refrained from co-sponsoring the draft in order to facilitate negotiations, but the text merited a large co-sponsorship from the Committee.
The revised draft resolution on the status of the Chemical Weapons Convention was approved by the Committee without a vote.
The representative of Israel said his delegation had joined the consensus. He reiterated his country's commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and urged all countries of the region to accede to it. It could be generally effective if it was treated solely on its merits, with verification covering the region as a whole.
The representative of Pakistan said he supported the draft. Its call for ratification by the declared chemical weapons possessors was the key objective of the draft. The Convention concluded after many years of intense negotiations, and only when the two chemical weapon States finally agreed on its scope, objectives and purposes. Entry into force without those States would negate the Treaty's objectives as a genuine disarmament measure. Entry into force in that unforseen circumstance would also prejudice its effective operation, which must commence with the participation of all relevant States.
He said that operative paragraph 5 concerning the Preparatory Committee was important, indeed crucial, in that regard. The Preparatory Committee needed to include important pending work, among which was review of the circumstances of the entry into force. Pakistan's decision to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention would have to take into account the positions of all the relevant States, in order to ensure that it remained what it was intended to be -- a disarmament treaty, and not another instrument for non- proliferation alone.
The representative of Algeria said his delegation was surprised to see two of the countries joining co-sponsorship of that draft. Since his country was the thirty-third State party to the Convention, it also wanted to be a draft co-sponsor. However, he was dissuaded by the co-sponsors, and sought clarification on the matter.
On the draft resolution in the fourth Special Session on disarmament, the representative of Indonesia said that an overwhelmingly large majority of States had expressed their support for a fourth special session, as had been reflected by 113 members of the Non-Aligned Movement at their conference in Cartagena this year. Today the need to convene a fourth special session was more than ever imperative. The original co-sponsors of draft text had exerted enormous efforts to accommodate the views of delegations. The number of new paragraphs in the amended version of the draft was testimony to their flexible approach.
The Committee approved the draft on a fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to two against (Israel, United States), with one abstention (Annex IV).
The representative of the United States said he had voted against the draft because its co-sponsors had insisted on setting a date before the establishment of any consensus on the goals, objectives and content of such a meeting. Absent such consensus, the United States saw no point in holding a fourth special session before the turn of the century. He warned against repeating the "failures" of the second and third special sessions.
To achieve success, he continued, a special session needed to discuss the broad spectrum of disarmament issues, but the proposed special session was clearly intended to focus on nuclear disarmament. That had been made clear at the First Committee's current session by the drafts introduced on, among others, the southern hemisphere, the opinion of the International Court of Justice, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Those drafts spoke louder than any words about the agenda envisaged by the sponsors of the current draft. The Committee's vote reaffirmed that any future special session on disarmament would have to be passed by consensus.
The representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the associated countries of Cyprus, Iceland and Norway, and the European Free Trade Area countries, said he had voted in favour of the draft. He regretted that there had been no consensus, since it was the conviction of the European Union that the process leading to a special session would need such consensus. He expected that the draft's co-sponsors would continue to strive to build consensus.
A fourth special session would have to be carefully prepared in order to achieve consensus on its objectives, which must include conventional weapons as well as nuclear arms, he continued. He added that the European Union was not in agreement with preambular paragraph 5 of the draft, which referred to the support for a fourth special session expressed at the Cartagena Conference this year. A vote in favour of the draft must not be seen as setting a precedent for approval of the language in that paragraph. In conclusion, he told the Committee that Cyprus wished to associate itself with his earlier remarks about the draft amendment to the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon- free zone in the Middle East.
The representative of the Russian Federation said he had abstained from voting because his country was convinced that the question of convening a special session on disarmament could be resolved only on the basis of consensus agreement. Without such agreement, it was wrong-headed to anticipate success. The text of the draft raised no difficulties, and he could have supported it if it had enjoyed general support. He regretted that the consultations had not produced a draft enjoying general support. The draft that had emerged had been hastily drawn up. Such haste could only damage prospects for a special session.
The representative of Iran said he regretted the absence of consensus. The draft's sponsors had tailored it in the hope of winning general agreement, but that had not happened. However, he had reservations about the concept of consensual agreement. Today's accent on the need for consensus should not set a precedent for other special sessions. He pointed out that the procedure of
the General Assembly entailed voting -- including on special sessions devoted to disarmament.
(annexes follow)
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3075 25th Meeting (PM) 18 November 1996
ANNEX I
Vote on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation -- Preambular Paragraph 6
Preambular paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, which concerns a decision of the States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), (document A/C.1/51/L.27/Rev.2) was approved by a vote of 118 in favour to 2 against with 10 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: India, Israel.
Abstaining: Armenia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Fiji, Guatemala, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Nicaragua, Pakistan.
Absent: Albania, Angola, Antigua-Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kazakstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.
(END OF ANNEX I)
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3075 25th Meeting (PM) 18 November 1996
ANNEX II
Vote on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation
The draft resolution on the use of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/51/L.27/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 2 against with 32 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Estonia, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Guatemala, India, Jamaica, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Absent: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Burundi, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Oman, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.
(END OF ANNEX II)
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3075 25th Meeting (PM) 18 November 1996
ANNEX III
Vote on Amendment to Nuclear-Weapon-Free Middle East
The amendment to the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, which adds language on the ongoing peace process to operative paragraph 4 (document A/C.1/51/L.54) was approved by a recorded vote of 61 in favour to 28 against, with 33 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.
Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
Abstaining: Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Malta, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Absent: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, Burundi, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zaire.
(END OF ANNEX III)
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3075 25th Meeting (PM) 18 November 1996
ANNEX IV
Vote on Fourth Special Session on Disarmament
The draft resolution on convening the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/51/L.11/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against with 1 abstention:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstaining: Russian Federation.
Absent: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.
* *** *