DRAFT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 1972 ABM TREATY APPROVED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE BY VOTE OF 54-4-73

Press Release
GA/DIS/3161

DRAFT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 1972 ABM TREATY APPROVED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE BY VOTE OF 54-4-73

Five Other Texts Approved on South-East Europe, Verification, Central Africa, Disarmament Special Session, Disarmament Advisory Board

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) this morning approved 5 draft resolutions and one draft decision, including an amended text on the preservation of and compliance with the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti- Ballistic Missile Systems -- the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty –- signed by the Russian Federation and the United States.

According to the text, sponsored by Belarus, China and the Russian Federation, the General Assembly would call for renewed efforts by each of the States parties to preserve and strengthen it through full and strict compliance. It would also call on the parties to limit the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems and to refrain from the deployment of such systems for a defence of the territory of its country. The resolution was approved by a vote of 54 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Latvia, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 73 abstentions (For details of the vote see Annex III).

Under an amendment submitted by France to the operative portion of the text, the Assembly would urge all Member States to support efforts aiming at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. A new preambular paragraph would have the Assembly recall the widespread concern about the proliferation of those weapons and their means of delivery. The Committee approved the amendments by a vote of 22 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 95 abstentions. (Annex II).

In presenting the amendments, the representative of France said that the unprecedented circumstances created by one of the States parties to the ABM Treaty had made it a priority matter to evolve a draft text that would be compatible with the concerns of all States. Incorporating two main elements into the text, namely the preservation of that cornerstone Treaty and combating the proliferation of ballistic missiles, had enabled her delegation to support it.

The United States representative, who had opposed both the draft and the amendments, said an obsolete Treaty did not produce stability; it only created the illusion of stability. His country could not ignore the emergence of new

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3161 24th Meeting (AM) 5 November 1999

threats or new technologies that might be used to protect against them. Thus, it rejected the idea that a 27-year old Treaty could not be amended to reflect the current realities.

Several delegations who had either opposed or abstained in the two votes explained that a bilateral dialogue between the two parties was the best way to facilitate the attainment of ballistic missile control. The representative of Latvia said “taking the initiative out of the hands of the initiators” might damage the Treaty.

Speaking on behalf of several European countries, the German representative said the manner in which the matter had been raised in the Committee did not have the support of both parties to the Treaty. Many European delegations had underlined the need for a consensus text from the very early stages of discussion, but regrettably, it had not been possible for the parties to the Treaty to reach an agreement on the issue. Both the Russian Federation and the United States, however, had reaffirmed, in statements, their commitment to the ABM Treaty.

Under another new text approved today on stability and development of South- Eastern Europe, the Assembly would call upon the participants of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, adopted on 10 June in Cologne, Germany, and all concerned international organizations, to support the efforts of South-Eastern European States to overcome the negative effects of the Kosovo crisis and to enable them to pursue sustainable development and integration of their economies in the European and global economy. The draft was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Belarus, China). (Annex I).

Acting without a vote today, the Committee approved three further draft resolutions and one draft decision. According to a draft resolution on the Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa, the Assembly would emphasize the importance of providing the States members of the Standing Advisory Committee with the essential support needed to carry out the full programme of activities, in particular the organization of joint military exercises to stimulate peacekeeping operations.

Under a text on verification in all its aspects, the Assembly would reaffirm the critical importance of, and vital contribution that had been made by effective verification measures in arms limitation and disarmament agreements and other similar obligations.

By another text, the Assembly would decide, subject to the emergence of a consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene a fourth special session on disarmament. In that connection, it would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the objectives, agenda and timing of this special session.

Under the terms of a draft decision on the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, the Assembly would decide to request the Secretary-General to adjust

First Committee - 1b - Press Release GA/DIS/3161 24th Meeting (AM) 5 November 1999

the language in the mandate of the Advisory Board to reflect the current practice of the Board. The thrust of the amendment would be to emphasize the Board's proactive advisory role on disarmament matters over its role to advise on various aspects of studies and research.

Statements on the drafts were made by the representatives of Algeria, Mali, Iraq, Oman, Mexico, Jordan, Russian Federation, Brazil, Belarus, Kenya, China, Egypt, Syria, Iran, South Africa, Pakistan, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Ukraine, Canada, Venezuela, Cuba, Peru, Philippines, Nepal, New Zealand, Japan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ecuador, Argentina and Sweden.

A revised draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Egypt.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Monday, 8 November, to continue taking action on disarmament- and security-related drafts.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue taking action on disarmament and security-related draft decisions. It was also expected to hear the introduction of revised drafts on: creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.7/Rev.1).

The Committee had before it: a draft on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, as well as an amendment to the text; two drafts on confidence- building measures, including transparency in armaments; two on the United Nations Disarmament machinery and one on international security.

According to a draft resolution sponsored by Belarus, China and the Russian Federation, on the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty) (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1), the Assembly, recognizing the historic role of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of 26 May 1972 as a cornerstone for maintaining international peace and security and strategic stability, would call for continued efforts to strengthen the Treaty and to preserve its integrity and validity so that it remained a cornerstone of global strategic stability and world peace and in promoting further strategic nuclear arms reductions.

In a related provision, the Assembly would call for renewed efforts by each of the States parties to the ABM Treaty to preserve and strengthen it through full and strict compliance. It would also call on the parties to the Treaty to limit the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems and to refrain from the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems for a defence of the territory of its country and not to provide a base for such a defence and not to transfer to other States or to deploy outside its national territory, ABM systems or their components limited by the Treaty.

The Assembly would consider that the implementation of any measure undermining the purposes and provisions of the Treaty would also undermine global strategic stability and world peace and the promotion of further strategic nuclear arms reductions. The Assembly would support further efforts by the international community in the light of emerging developments with the goal of safeguarding the inviolability and integrity of the ABM Treaty in which the international community bore strong interest. It would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fifth session.

By the terms of the provisional amendment submitted by France (document A/C.1/54/L.56), a seventh preambular paragraph would be added, as follows:

“Recalling finally the widespread concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.”

After operative paragraph 4, a new paragraph would be added, as follows:

“Urges all Member States to support efforts aiming at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.”

According to a draft resolution on the activities of the Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/54/L.5), the Assembly would emphasize the importance of providing the States members of the Standing Advisory Committee with the essential support they needed to carry out the full programme of activities which they had adopted at the ninth and tenth ministerial meetings, in particular the organization of joint military exercises to stimulate peacekeeping operations.

In that connection, the Assembly would 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 programme of work of the Standing Advisory Committee, in particular to activities such as the joint military exercises, the creation of a mechanism for the promotion, maintenance and consolidation of peace and security in Central Africa, to be known as the Council for Peace and Security in Central Africa, and the establishment of a network of parliamentarians from the heads of State and government of the Economic Community of Central African States, with a view to the eventual creation of a parliament of the Community.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea and Niger.

Under the terms of a draft decision sponsored by France on the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (document A/C.1/54/L.28), the Assembly would decide to request the Secretary-General to adjust the language in the mandate of the Advisory Board as set out in paragraphs 45 to 46 of the report of the Secretary- General.

The relevant paragraphs in the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Advisory Board (document A/54/218) concern the Board's improved functioning and mandate, and contain the Secretary-General's endorsement that the General Assembly approve the change of language to reflect the current practice of the Board.

The Board proposes that the language of its formal mandate, adopted in 1982, be readjusted to reflect its actual functions as they have been performed for more than a decade. The thrust of the amendment would be to emphasize the Board's proactive advisory role on disarmament matters over its role to advise on various aspects of studies and research. Its function to serve as the Board of Trustees for the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) would remain unchanged, and it would retain its role of advising on the implementation of the Disarmament Information Programme.

A draft text on verification in all its aspects (document A./C.1/54/L.29) would have the Assembly reaffirm the critical importance of, and vital contribution that had been made by effective verification measures in arms limitation and disarmament agreements and other similar obligations. It would request the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fifty- sixth session on further views received from Member States pursuant to resolutions 50/61 and 52/31.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Slovakia, Ukraine and Uruguay.

According to a new draft resolution on the stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/C.1/54/L.40/Rev.1), the Assembly would call upon all participants of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, adopted on 10 June in Cologne, Germany, and all concerned international organizations, to support the efforts of South-Eastern European States to overcome the negative effects of the Kosovo crisis and to enable them to pursue sustainable development and integration of their economies in the European and global economy. The Assembly would urge the normalization of relations among the States of South-Eastern Europe and the strengthening of their mutual cooperation on the basis of respect of international law and agreements, and within the principle of good-neighbourliness and mutual respect.

The Assembly would affirm the urgency of the consolidation of South- Eastern Europe as a region of peace, security, stability, democracy, cooperation, economic development, observance of human rights and good- neighbourliness, thus contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security and enhancing the prospect for sustained development and prosperity for all peoples in the region as an integral part of Europe. It would also affirm the need for full observance of the United Nations Charter and for strict compliance with the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and inviolability of international borders of any States.

In a related provision, the Assembly would call upon all States to solve their disputes with other States by peaceful means, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, and call upon them, the relevant international organizations and competent organs of the United Nations to continue to take measures in accordance with the Charter, as appropriate, to eliminate threats to international peace and security and to help prevent conflicts which could lead to the violent disintegration of States. It would stress the importance of good-neighbourliness and the development of friendly relations among States, the solution of problems among States and the promotion of international cooperation in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

The Assembly would stress the importance of regional efforts aimed at preventing bilateral conflicts endangering the maintenance of international peace and security and note with satisfaction that the multilateral peacekeeping force for South-East Europe had become operational. It would also stress that closer engagement of the South-Eastern European States in furthering cooperation on the European continent would favourably influence the security, political and economic situation in the region, as well as the good-neighbourly relations among the Balkan States.

It would also emphasize the importance of regional efforts in South- Eastern Europe on arms control, disarmament and confidence-building measures and call upon all States and the relevant international organizations to communicate to the Secretary-General their views on the subject of the draft resolution. It would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fifth session an item entitled “Maintenance of International Security -- Stability and Development of South-Eastern Europe”.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liberia, Luxembourg, Monaco, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.

A draft resolution sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/54/L.48) would have the Assembly decide, subject to the emergence of a consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene the special session. It would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the objectives, agenda and timing of the special session and to report to the Assembly at its fifty-fifth session. It would decide to include that item at the next session.

Actions on Texts

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/54/L.5).

The representative of Algeria said he wished to recall the difficulties his delegation had experienced last year concerning the eleventh preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 9, which it had deemed important. The elements contained in those two paragraphs should be considered in another Committee, but out of solidarity and since it was an African text, his delegation had joined consensus, despite its difficulties.

[The eleventh preambular paragraph recalls the decision of the fourth meeting of the Standing Advisory Committee in favour of establishing, under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a subregional centre for human rights and democracy in Central Africa.

Operative paragraph 9 requests the Secretary-General to provide the States members of the Standing Advisory Committee with the necessary support in making operational the early warning mechanism and the Council for Peace and Security in Central Africa.]

The representative of Mali said his delegation wished to co-sponsor the draft on security questions in Central Africa.

The Committee Secretary announced that the Republic of Moldova, Turkey and Haiti had joined the text on verification in all its aspects (document A/C.1/54/L.29).

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on verification in all its aspects (document A/C.1/54/L.29) without a vote.

Turning to the drafts on the disarmament machinery, the representative of Irak spoke on the text on the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (document A/C.1/54/L.28). He said the Advisory Board’s report had completely ignored acts of spying and falsification exercised by the leadership of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq and many of its inspectors. Ignoring that issue had meant that the Advisory Board had not heeded that very serious issue, which had undermined the credibility of the role of the United Nations in the field of disarmament. It had been surprising that the Board had reached its conclusions based on an informal paper presented by the former UNSCOM Chairman, Rolf Ekeus. Meanwhile, the conclusions of the report submitted by Celso Amorim (Brazil) to the Security Council had been completely different.

He noted the mention in the Board’s report that it had not been in a position to evaluate the scope of the secrets in the field of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. He said that conclusion had confirmed the “non-objectivity” of those who had prepared the report. Following nine years of “interventionist inspection” in Iraq and the almost daily use of United States spying aircraft, as well as the use of satellites and spies among the inspectors, UNSCOM had not provided any evidence regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction or its components in Iraq. The Board should have reached that latter conclusion. Raising doubts without providing evidence was the most dangerous thing that disarmament experts could do.

He said the Board’s report had also stated that the Iraqi decision of non- compliance had been the first regrettable step. That argument was far from the truth. The first regrettable step had been taken by the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, when he withdrew his inspectors from Iraq without the knowledge or consent of either the Security Council or the Secretary-General. A destructive step had followed, namely the launching by the United States and the United Kingdom of aggression against Iraq on 16 December 1998. That aggression had targeted not only the facilities of infrastructure in Iraq, but also most of the monitoring and verification facilities, from which the inspectors had departed hours before the bombing.

The United States and the United Kingdom should “pay the price” of their aggression against Iraq and its people, he said. History moved forward and not backward. No one should expect Iraq to accept new farces, such as the farce of the former UNSCOM.

The Committee then approved the draft decision on the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (document A/C.1/54/L.28) without a vote.

The representative of Oman, speaking after the vote on the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, said that his country had joined consensus, but in the future would appreciate more information on the draft decision, in the context of transparency and the nature of the board.

A draft resolution on convening the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/54/L.48) was adopted without a vote.

The Committee moved into the category of international security.

The Secretary said that the draft resolution on maintenance of the international security -- stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/C.1/54/L.40/Rev.1) had new co-sponsors: Denmark, Ukraine, United States, Czech Republic, Croatia, Canada, Cyprus, Azerbaijan and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 137 in favour, to none against, with 2 abstentions (Belarus, China). (For details of the vote see Annex I.)

The representative of Mexico, speaking after the vote, said that last year his country had abstained from vote on this draft resolution, because the job of the First Committee was to deal only with disarmament issues and issues of international security related to disarmament questions. This year, the co-sponsors of the text had inserted a paragraph that highlighted the importance of disarmament activities and confidence-building measures in the region under question, which was a rather tenuous connection. His delegation hoped that in the future the Committee would stick solely to disarmament and related security issues.

The Chairman said that since the morning’s work programme had been completed the Committee should consider taking up the draft resolution on preservation and compliance with the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1).

The representative of Jordan said the presentation of the resolution was late in reaching his delegation, and asked for more time to consider the important French proposal.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that delegations had had 24 hours to review the draft resolution and that he wished for a vote today.

The Chairman clarified that there was still one hour left before the full twenty-four hour period since delegations had received the text.

The representative of Brazil said his delegation was prepared to vote on all the draft resolutions now.

The representative of Belarus said he agreed with Brazil and believed the Committee needed to think of effective use of time and resources.

The representative of Kenya supported Brazil’s desire for a vote now, saying his delegation was ready for action on all draft texts.

The representative of China agreed with the two previous speakers.

The Chairman announced a one-hour adjournment of the meeting to allow for the 24-hour period.

The Committee Chairman, at the resumed meeting, turned to the draft resolutions in the category on nuclear weapons.

Introduction of Revised Draft

MOTAZ ZAHRAN (Egypt) introduced a revised draft resolution on the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.7/Rev.1). The draft resolution had been adopted by the Assembly since 1974, and by consensus since 1980. Today would be the nineteenth consecutive year of its consensus approval. The Disarmament Commission, during its 1999 substantive session, had reached agreement on guidelines for the establishment of such zones. Those guidelines, which had been adopted by consensus, were principal additions that were essential and conducive to promoting the present draft text. Reaching those guidelines, however, had been a “smokescreen” for some to continue their “secret and ambiguous” nuclear programmes and policies.

He said his delegation had entered into protracted negotiations with the Israeli delegation, aimed at drawing attention to the importance of an additional preambular. The twelfth preambular paragraph had indeed reflected the spirit of what had been agreed to by the Israeli delegation in the Disarmament Commission. It was “bizarre” that a delegation would enter into negotiations with another delegation on what had already been agreed in another forum in that same year. Regrettably, such intransigence and rigidity had characterized the behaviour of some delegations. Such positions had only raised questions about the genuine positions concerning the essential issues, with significant implications for the situation in the Middle East.

Omitting the reference to the Commission’s guidelines in the draft resolution had been illogical and had made him wonder, he said. In order to maintain consensus on the text, however, and after protracted negotiations with several parties, the Egyptian delegation had presented the amended version of the draft, in which the twelfth preambular paragraph had been deleted. As the text was now the same as the original one, it would hopefully enjoy consensus once more.

Action on Texts

The representative of the United States, speaking before the vote on the amendments sponsored by France (document A/C.1/54/L.56) to the draft resolution on the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1), said he would vote “no” on the amendments. While he shared the substantive concerns reflected in the amendments, it had been a mistake to consider those concerns in connection with the draft resolution. Those amendments had not fixed the resolution. Also, he would oppose the draft, with or without the amendments.

The representative of Jordan said he was not comfortable with the amendments introduced yesterday by the representative of France, even though those had dealt with a very important domain of disarmament, namely the non- proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Whenever possible, his delegation had supported the votes on issues of non-proliferation and would certainly continue to do so, particularly in a neighbourhood where the closest neighbour had a programme that had made his country rather uncomfortable. Non- proliferation in his region and others would be welcome, but including the non- proliferation issue in the domain of maintaining the ABM Treaty had very much diluted and blurred the issue. If he were to be intellectually honest, he would vote against the amendment. In order not to be “more royalist than the King”, he would abstain in the vote.

The representative of Syria said he had welcomed the ABM Treaty, as that Treaty had enhanced stability and strategic balance and had constituted an important part of bilateral and multilateral agreements. The amendments, however, were far removed from the main objective of the draft under consideration, and had deviated from its main direction. Those had encouraged violations of the ABM Treaty, and had therefore fallen outside the draft’s perspective. He would abstain in the vote.

The representative of Iran said he would vote in favour of the draft resolution for obvious reasons -- the ABM Treaty had been one of the main foundations of global security and had served as an essential element in maintaining stability and global strategic balance. The Treaty had also played an important role in restraining the arms race, particularly among the nuclear- weapon States. The expected overwhelming Committee support for the draft would manifest the strong desire of the international community to preserve the integrity of the ABM Treaty. In the same spirit, he would abstain in the vote on the amendments. While sharing some of the main points elaborated yesterday by the French delegation, the amendments were not consistent with the spirit of the text, which had called for the unequivocal support for the preservation of and compliance with the ABM Treaty.

He said the concepts envisaged in the amendments might be misinterpreted to go against the spirit of the draft. Those amendments should be improved to better reflect the current realities. Although the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction had truly threatened international security, that would not be completely reversed unless those weapons were outlawed and destroyed under effective international control. Their continued proliferation had been a major concern of the global community, which had concluded conventions on biological and chemical weapons for that reason.

He said his delegation had been willing to rectify the shortcomings inherent in the amendment, but due to the complexity of the issues related to the draft, the late submission of the amendments and the consultations with the sponsors of the text, it had decided not to push for any further complicating amendment.

The representative of South Africa said the amendments and the emphasis placed on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems had been fully in line with his Government’s policy. While those amendments had been acceptable in terms of South Africa’s national policies, those had not been appropriately proposed. He would, therefore, abstain in the vote on the amendments. In the event of their adoption, he would vote in favour of the amended draft resolution as a whole.

The representative of Pakistan said the draft resolution had related to a very specific subject, namely the preservation of and compliance with the ABM Treaty. A position should be taken on the draft on the basis of its own merits, rather than have it be distracted by any discriminatory positions. Efforts were being made to eliminate the threat of the proliferation of chemical weapons. The Biological Weapons Convention had existed for many years, and efforts were currently under way to strengthen it through a protocol. Only nuclear weapons had been the subject of widespread concern, because those had existed in the thousands and because some nuclear-weapon States had sought to perpetuate discriminatory and double standards concerning related policies and programmes.

He said the reason for the amendments had not been understood and seemed to be designed to impose on the resolution the discrimination inherent in the policies of some States who had preached restraint by some countries not to acquire or produce those weapons, while keeping those weapons for themselves. He would have opposed the amendments, but because the co-sponsors of the draft had decided to abstain, his delegation would also do so.

The amendments (document A/C.1/54/L.56) were approved, by a vote of 22 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 95 abstention (Annex II).

The representative of Iraq, speaking before the vote on the draft on the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1), said the Treaty was the cornerstone of maintaining strategic balance and stability in the world today. Since 1972 it had contributed to the limitation of development and deployment of anti- ballistic missiles in the Soviet Union and the United States. It had played a significant role in the creation of a favourable climate for the nuclear disarmament process.

He said that the United States was endeavouring to weaken the Treaty, contrary to the desire of the Russian Federation and the majority of the international community, and their aim was clear -- to obtain absolute strategic superiority at the expense of the security of others. That aim extended to systems that did not exclude outer space.

As an Arab State, he was concerned that the United States continued bilateral cooperation with Israel on a new defensive missile programme. The missile successfully tested by Israel several days ago was a result of that cooperation and launched a new stage of the arms race, based on reneging on international conventions already in force. That seriously jeopardized peace and security, as well as diverting more material and resources for the military, rather than economic and social development. He strongly supported the draft in its original form, and he called on other States to follow suit.

The representative of India said that the ABM Treaty was an important legal instrument of continuing relevance to the international community. Each party undertook not to deploy anti-ballistic missiles for the defence of its territory, which was a substantial factor in limiting the arms race. The current resolution reaffirmed the premise of the Treaty. All disarmament agreements took place after the ABM Treaty and, until an alternative process was in place, it would still be a relevant concern of the international community. Non-compliance with the Treaty had global consequences.

India had closely followed discussions on the various draft texts, she said, and supported the objective of the co-sponsors in expressing the Assembly’s concern over the development of new missile defence systems. There was an imperative need for stemming such deployments and strengthening the ABM Treaty. India had abstained on the amendments to the resolution, not because it had any quarrels with their intent, but because they were not relevant to the objective of the resolution. She would vote in favour of the resolution.

The representative of Pakistan said that the ABM Treaty was the bedrock of maintaining strategic stability. Preservation and compliance was vital for international security and for promoting nuclear disarmament. Although the nuclear Powers said that disarmament was a bilateral issue, the framework for such disarmament was now in danger because of those States’ own actions. Statements by the Russian Federation had made it clear that deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system in the United States could derail the Second Strategic Arms Limitation and Reduction Treaty (START II) process and delay START III. Those were not bilateral matters. His country would, therefore, vote in favour of the resolution, although it appealed to the Russian Federation to also display the same sensitivity to security concerns of his country, and reconsider the matter of their resupplying their neighbour.

The representative of Kenya said that the ABM Treaty was not the only arms control treaty threatened by current developments. The Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was under even greater siege. The nuclear States had already disregarded article VI of the Treaty by their reluctance to undertake disarmament in good faith. All arms control treaties should be treated equally. It was imperative to involve the international community right from the beginning, to provide a better guarantee for survival of such treaties. Therefore, his Government would vote for the resolution.

The representative of Nigeria said that to achieve disarmament agreements, bilateral, multilateral and unilateral efforts were needed. The ABM Treaty was the result of determined bilateral efforts. The repeated assertion that the responsibility for nuclear disarmament lay with the United States and the Russian Federation -- those two countries with largest supply of nuclear weapons -- rested on the assumption that there was a high degree of cooperation between those States. Any lack of cooperation could have a negative effect on other disarmament treaties. The ABM Treaty had been amended before, in a spirit of cooperation, and the United States and the Russian Federation should resume an ongoing dialogue in such a spirit. It was in that hope that Nigeria would abstain in the voting.

The representative of Brazil said that he continued to believe that the ABM Treaty was a cornerstone of nuclear stability, but since some provisions of current draft were not in line with the current practice and law of treaties, Brazil would abstain.

The representative of the Ukraine said that while the United States and the Russian Federation had reaffirmed their commitment to the ABM Treaty this year -- the Cologne Statement -- the United States’ decision to continue with plans for development of an ABM system was cause for concern. Every State had the right to solve issues of national security, taking into account existing or potential threats. However, those issues could not be solved at the expense of international commitments. The Standing Consultative Council was the proper multilateral forum for all discussion of amendments to the ABM Treaty. He supported the main thrust of the French amendments, but the need for further analysis would make his delegation abstain on the vote.

The draft resolution on the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1) was approved by a vote of 54 in favour to 4 against (United States, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Latvia), with 73 abstentions (Annex III).

The representative of Canada, speaking in explanation of vote on the draft, said his abstention should in no way be interpreted to mean any change in his Government’s appreciation of the fundamental importance of the ABM Treaty to international security. Last week, in Boston, his Foreign Minister had underlined the importance of the Treaty to international strategic stability, and had also cautioned that, in efforts to reconcile national missile defence with the Treaty, great care should be taken not to damage the system that had underpinned nuclear restraint and allowed for nuclear reductions.

He said that while the global community had an official stake in the outcome of bilateral talks, that process between the parties involved should be given more time. He questioned whether bringing the issue to light in this way, at this time, had been the best way to move matters forward. His country had remained deeply concerned about the broad issue of the proliferation of missiles, especially those carrying weapons of mass destruction. Thus, he voted in favour of the amendments.

The representative of Venezuela said he shared the concerns expressed in the text. In the current circumstances, he was confident that the parties to the ABM Treaty would be able to resolve the discrepancies without jeopardizing the Treaty. The international community must remain watchful of the evolution of the process. Likewise, his country had favourably viewed the scope of the amendments by France, and had felt that the broader issue of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems could be dealt with in a timely and appropriate way. Thus, he had abstained in the vote on the text.

The representative of Cuba said the international community had been making considerable efforts to adopt instruments preventing or curbing the creation and development of certain weapons and their delivery systems, such as nuclear weapons, which had threatened international security. It was really lamentable that a country that had assumed commitments under a Treaty of historic importance had been carrying out actions that had undermined or sidestepped the letter and spirit of that legal instrument. He would vote in favour of the draft, as it had emphasized the need to strictly respect the ABM Treaty.

He said that any violation of the ABM Treaty, as indicated by the co-sponsors of the draft, would negatively influence not only the States parties, but the entire international community. That, in turn, would have negative consequences for peace, security, strategic balance and nuclear disarmament. The discussion in the framework of the General Assembly had been completely relevant. He hoped that during the next session, the present disturbing situation concerning the ABM Treaty would have evolved in such a way as to make it unnecessary to adopt a resolution on the subject.

The representative of Peru said he wished to emphasize the traditional position of his country in favour of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, as well as its support for the validity of the ABM Treaty. That position had inspired his vote on the draft.

The representative of the Philippines said he had continued to support the sanctity of the ABM Treaty for reasons already stated. Certain points, however, as had made it difficult to support the draft. In East Asia, where the potential for conflict had existed and where the nuclear factor had hovered, potential conflicts could emerge in many geographic areas, all of them straddling the Philippines. Thus, he had to reserve his position on the text, and had not participated in the vote.

On the other hand, he said that many in the Philippines had still felt that all effort must be exerted to preserve the ABM Treaty, but the text might not be “the way to go”. He had witnessed, a few weeks ago, how the United States had proceeded with important policy decisions. The United States Congress and the influence of the military contractors would swing the debate on the ABM Treaty in their favour. Any effort to persuade them otherwise would be futile. He would, therefore, reserve participation now, but would participate in the next vote on the subject next year.

The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said the position of most interested parties deserved full and careful consideration. Taking into account the cornerstone importance of the ABM Treaty, his delegation had abstained in the vote on the amendments and on the draft itself.

The representative of Ecuador said he was in favour of the need for the General Assembly to deal with all disarmament and international stability and arms control issues, on which measures needed to be taken. The subjects dealt with in the draft resolution on the ABM Treaty and the amendments had been relevant and should, therefore, be given the priority attention of the international community. Nonetheless, it was premature to deal with the matter, which had been reflected in his vote.

The representative of Argentina said he had attached great importance to the ABM Treaty and to other agreements between the nuclear-weapon States. He had been concerned at the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament by those countries, as reflected in the lack of ratification of START II and the absence of progress on START III. There had also been a need to strengthen existing treaties. Thus, he would reiterate the appeal he had made directly to the countries involved that they should redouble efforts to strengthen existing agreements and advance new ones. Nonetheless, his delegation had abstained in the vote, because it was not convinced that the draft would create a climate conducive to reaching agreement on such areas.

The representative of Latvia said that, although he had opposed the draft, he wished to emphasize his support of all efforts made to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. But, initially, a continued bilateral dialogue between the Russian Federation and the United States was the best and most practical way to facilitate attainment of ballistic missile control. “Taking the initiative out of the hands of the initiators” might damage the Treaty. He supported debate among all of the nuclear-weapon States on the control of their destructive weaponry, as it had sought improved global security.

The representative of Germany spoke on behalf of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. He said those countries had decided to abstain in the vote on the draft. The manner in which the matter had been raised in the Committee did not have the support of both parties to the Treaty.

He said the countries named above had underlined the need for consensus from the very early stages of discussion, and had been involved in efforts to reach such a consensus. Regrettably, it had not been possible for the parties to the Treaty to reach an agreement on the issue. He had attached great importance to the ABM Treaty, which had contributed to the broad disarmament and arms control process. Both the Russian Federation and the United States had reaffirmed, in their statements, their commitment to the ABM Treaty and their continued efforts to strengthen it in order to enhance and strengthen its future viability.

He said he had urged the parties to continue cooperation on that basis and had underlined the importance of further progress in both bilateral and multilateral efforts. The parties had also been urged to continue the bilateral process, including the early entry into force of START II and an early commencement of START III negotiations. Since the NPT had provided the global framework for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, he had called on all States parties to the NPT to strive for a successful Review Conference and had underlined the importance of continued and intensified efforts to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force, in particular, by the 44 States whose ratification was required.

He said a political climate beneficial for further progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation would be affected by such factors as preservation of the ABM regime, continuation of the START process, and further progress with regards to the CTBT. He was strongly committed to the cause of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems and had fully supported the substance of the French amendments. Regrettably, he had felt obliged to abstain, as it would have not been appropriate to support amendments without being in a position to support the amended resolution.

The representative of Sweden said he had associated himself with the explanation of vote made by the representative of Germany, on behalf of several European countries. The ABM Treaty had been a cornerstone of strategic stability and an important component of global stability. Its continued integrity, therefore, was of global concern, and also closely linked to the broader disarmament and non-proliferation agenda. He had followed, with close attention and concern, the developments surrounding the Treaty, and would call on the States parties to restrain from deploying anti-ballistic missile defence systems, which could negatively affect nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and create uncertainties.

He said the States parties should demonstrate a commitment to the ABM Treaty by continuing cooperation in a constructive spirit. Regrettably, those parties had been unable to submit a consensus draft. In the absence of such consensus, it had been inappropriate to interfere. He had, therefore, decided to abstain in the vote on the draft, as well as in the amendments proposed by France. He would underline the importance of continued efforts towards the early entry into force of other arms control treaties, a solid ABM regime, the continuation of the START process, and further strengthening of the CTBT, as those were all vital ingredients in promoting a climate for global non- proliferation and disarmament.

The representative of Nepal explained his country’s vote on the draft resolution on the ABM treaty. He said he supported the text because the Treaty had heralded the era of détente in arms control, and any effort to undermine the continued relevancy of the Treaty would spark a new round of the arms race.

The representative of France said that because of the unprecedented circumstances created by one State party of the ABM Treaty, it deemed it a matter of priority to evolve a draft text that would be compatible with the concerns of all States. There were two basic needs for the text: first, to preserve the Treaty, the cornerstone of strategic stability since 1972; second, to combat the proliferation of ballistic missiles. Since those two basic elements now appeared in the text, France had been able to vote in favour of it.

The representative of New Zealand said he had abstained on the vote because he had difficulty with aspects of it. But the ABM Treaty was fundamental to international stability, as made clear in the draft resolution on the new agenda, and he urged all parties to strengthen and maintain it.

The representative of Japan reiterated the importance of the ABM Treaty, but abstained in the vote. Was it constructive to take the matter to the General Assembly while bilateral efforts were being made by countries directly involved? Still, he respected the right of any Member State to express its views in a resolution of the Assembly.

The representative of Egypt said he had voted in favour of the resolution, but abstained from the amendments, not because he did not fully support their concerns, but because they were not linked closely enough to the issue. He affirmed his support for all those concerned with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The representative of the United States said that he attached great importance to nuclear disarmament, and that bilateral negotiations had made significant progress in reducing the nuclear stockpiles of both nations. The United States would continue to work towards reducing those stocks further. That was the most substantial action the United States could make towards fulfilling its obligation towards arms control.

Arms control, however, he added, did not occur in a vacuum. There were always new developments -- in technology, in political climate, in the nature of security threats. The ABM Treaty was a cornerstone, but as circumstances changed, it might become necessary to change the Treaty to reflect those new realities. Those changes needed to be made by negotiations. The ABM Treaty had provisions for amendments and had already been amended.

Prudent adaptation was important to maintaining strategic stability, he said. Obsolete treaties that could not reflect current reality only created the illusion of stability. It was reckless and irresponsible to ignore the emergence of new threats, and the new technologies that could protect against them. He rejected the idea that a 27-year old treaty could not be amended to maintain stability and security.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Security of South-Eastern Europe

The draft resolution on the maintenance of international security –- stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/C.1/54/L.40/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, 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, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Belarus, China.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Honduras, Indonesia, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Syria, Tonga, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Amendments to Resolution on ABM Treaty

The amendments to the draft resolution on preservation and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems -- The Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty -- (document A/C.4/54/L.56) was approved by a recorded vote of 22 in favour to 1 against, with 95 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Guyana, Haiti, Ireland, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine.

Against: United States.

Abstain: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte D' Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Namibia, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Preservation of ABM Treaty

The draft resolution on the preservation and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems -– the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 54 in favour to 4 against, with 73 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote D’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Papau New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

* *** *