GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD CONVENE 2001 CONFERENCE ON ILLICIT ARMS TRADE UNDER TERMS OF DRAFT TEXT APPROVED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

Press Release
GA/DIS/3162

GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD CONVENE 2001 CONFERENCE ON ILLICIT ARMS TRADE UNDER TERMS OF DRAFT TEXT APPROVED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

Other Resolutions Approved Concern Test-Ban Treaty, Nuclear Disarmament, Middle East, Landmine Convention

The General Assembly, convinced of the need for a comprehensive approach to promote the control and reduction of small arms and light weapons, would decide to convene a conference on the illicit trade in such weapons in June/July 2001, according to one of six draft resolutions approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

By further terms of the text on small arms, the Assembly would be asked to establish a preparatory committee, which would be requested to decide, at its first session, on the date and venue of the conference, as well as on the dates and venues of its subsequent sessions. The Assembly would stress the need to ensure the widest possible and effective participation in the 2001 conference. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Kuwait, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia). (For details of the vote see Annex VI).

The representative of France, supporting the draft as a whole, requested a separate vote on the eighth preambular paragraph reaffirming the right of self- determination of all peoples, in particular peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation. He said that confusing provision, which had not belonged in the text, seemed to introduce the idea that the use of armed force might be a way of settling disputes. The Committee voted to retain the paragraph by 127 in favour to 1 against (Russian Federation), with 14 abstentions (Annex V).

Speaking in explanation of vote on that provision, the representative of the Russian Federation said although efforts to suppress illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, including the convening of an international conference, had his full and unconditional support, the eighth preambular paragraph “waters down and distorts” the contents of the text. That provision could be used as a cover for those forces dealing with illicit traffic in weapons. He had agreed with most of the provisions, but had abstained in the vote on the text as a whole.

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3162 25th Meeting (AM) 8 November 1999

Also today, the Committee approved a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament by a vote of 90 in favour to 40 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex III). By the terms of the draft, co-sponsored by several countries of the Non- Aligned Movement, the Assembly would recognize that, in view of recent political developments, the time was now opportune for all the nuclear-weapon States to undertake effective disarmament measures with a view to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It would also recognize the genuine need to de-emphasize the role of those weapons and to revise nuclear doctrines accordingly.

A draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Mauritius, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania) (Annex II). Among its terms, the Assembly would call upon all States that had not yet signed the Treaty to sign and ratify it as soon as possible and refrain from acts which could defeat its object and purpose in the meanwhile. It would also call for all States that had signed but not yet ratified the Treaty, in particular those whose ratification was needed for its entry into force, to accelerate their ratification processes. It would urge States to maintain their nuclear testing and nuclear explosions moratoriums.

A draft text on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would have the Assembly call upon the only State in the region that was not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to accede to the Treaty without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. Further, it would call on it to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour, to 3 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 11 abstentions (Annex I).

The Assembly would urge all parties directly concerned in the Middle East to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of the proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East and, as a means of promoting that objective, invite those countries to adhere to the NPT, under a draft resolution sponsored by Egypt and approved without a vote on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

Also today, the Committee approved a draft on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention). By its terms, the Assembly would urge all States that had signed but not ratified the Convention to ratify it without delay, and invite all States that had not signed the Convention to accede to it without delay. It would stress the importance of the full and effective implementation of, and compliance with, the Convention, and urge all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information as required in article 7 of the

First Committee - 1b - Press Release GA/DIS/3162 25th Meeting (AM) 8 November 1999

Convention. The draft was approved by a vote of 122 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions (Annex IV).

Statements on the drafts were made by the representatives of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Ecuador, Lebanon, Israel, United States, Syria, India, Iran, Pakistan, Chile, China, Japan, Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Egypt, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Libya, Turkey, Myanmar, Singapore, South Africa, Nepal, Norway, Oman and Cuba.

The representative of Iran introduced a revised draft resolution on missiles.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m., Tuesday, 9 November, to conclude its action on all disarmament- and security-related drafts.

Committee Programme of Work

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue taking action on disarmament and security related draft resolutions.

For action, the Committee had before it four nuclear weapons-related drafts, two on conventional weapons, and one on transparency in armaments.

By the terms of a text on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/54/L.2*), the Assembly would urge all States that had signed but not ratified the Convention to ratify it without delay, and invite all States that had not signed the Convention to accede to it without delay. It would stress the importance of the full and effective implementation of, and compliance with, the Convention, and urge all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information as required in article 7 of the Convention, in order to promote transparency and compliance with the Convention.

[Under article 7, States parties are required to provide the Secretary- General, within 180 days after the treaty's entry into force, a detailed report of its anti-personnel landmine stockpiles, mined areas and steps taken to protect nearby populations, demining and destruction programmes, destruction inventories, and technical characteristics of mines produced or possessed to facilitate mine clearance.]

In a related provision, the Assembly would renew its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine awareness programmes, and the removal of anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world and the assurance of their destruction. It would invite all States that had not ratified or acceded to the Convention to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to make global mine action efforts more effective.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, France, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, United Kingdom and Zambia.

By the terms of a draft resolution sponsored by Egypt on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.7/Rev.1), the Assembly would urge all parties directly concerned to seriously consider taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of the proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East, in accordance with the relevant General Assembly resolutions, and as a means of promoting that objective, invite the countries concerned to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (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 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Further, pending the zone’s establishment, the Assembly would also invite those countries not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit the stationing on their territories, or territories under their control, of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices.

In a related provision, the Assembly would invite the nuclear-weapon States and all other States to render their assistance in the establishment of the zone, and at the same time, to refrain from any action that ran counter to both the letter and the spirit of the present text.

A draft resolution sponsored by Egypt on behalf of the League of Arab States on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.8/Rev.1) would have the Assembly call upon the only State in the region that was not party to the NPT to accede to the Treaty without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full scope IAEA safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.

A draft text sponsored by Egypt, Nigeria and Swaziland on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/54/L.21) would have the Assembly recognize the importance of achieving greater progress in the development of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms in order that it might truly enhance confidence-building and security among States and accelerate efforts towards attainment of general and complete disarmament.

In that connection, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of the Group of Governmental Experts on the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms to be convened in 2000 and, taking into account the views submitted by Member States, to report to the fifty-fifth session on: the expansion of the Register to include military holdings, procurement through national production, delivery systems and transfers of armaments technology; the elaboration of practical means for the development of the Register in order to increase transparency related to weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, and transfers of equipment and technology directly related to the development and manufacture of such weapons.

According to a draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/54/L.23*), the Assembly would endorse the Final Declaration of the Conference on facilitating the entry into force of the CTBT, held in Vienna from 6 to 8 October. In particular, the Assembly would call upon all States that had not yet signed the Treaty to sign and ratify it as soon as possible and refrain from acts which could defeat its object and purpose in the meanwhile; and call upon all States that had signed but not yet ratified the Treaty, in particular those whose ratification was needed for its entry into force, to accelerate their ratification processes with a view to their early successful conclusion.

The Assembly would urge States to maintain their moratoriums on nuclear- weapon- test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, and to sustain the momentum generated by the Conference on facilitating the entry into force of the CTBT by continuing to remain seized of the issue at the highest political level. The Assembly would welcome the contributions of States signatories to the work of the Preparatory Commission of the CTBT Organization (CTBTO), in particular to its efforts to ensure that the Treaty’s verification regime would be capable of meeting the verification requirements of the Treaty upon its entry into force, in accordance with article IV of the Treaty.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Togo, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia.

By the terms of a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (A/C.1/54/L.41), the Assembly would recognize that, in view of recent political developments, the time was now opportune for all the nuclear-weapon States to undertake effective disarmament measures with a view to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It would also recognize the genuine need to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons and to review and revise nuclear doctrines accordingly.

In that connection, the Assembly would urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems, and, as an interim measure, to immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons. It would also urge them to commence plurilateral negotiations among themselves at an appropriate stage on further deep reductions of nuclear weapons as an effective measure of nuclear disarmament.

The Assembly would reiterate its call upon the nuclear-weapon States to undertake the step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat and to carry out effective nuclear disarmament measures with a view to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It would call for the conclusion, as a first step, of universal and legally binding multilateral agreement committing States to the process of nuclear disarmament leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It would also call upon those States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument of the joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

In that connection, the Assembly would call upon all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non-use and threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. It would reiterate its call upon the Conference on Disarmament to establish, on a priority basis, an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament to commence negotiations early in 2000 on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament and for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, through a set of legal instruments, which might include a nuclear weapons convention.

In a related provision, the Assembly would call for the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament at an early date with the objective of arriving at an agreement or agreements on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament and for the eventual total elimination of nuclear weapons through a set of legal instruments, which might include a nuclear weapons convention. The Secretary-General would be requested to submit to the Assembly, at its next session, a report on the implementation of the present resolution, and decide to include in the provisional agenda of that session an item entitled “Nuclear disarmament”.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Malta, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Uruguay, Viet Nam and Zambia.

By the terms of a draft resolution on small arms (document A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1*), the Assembly would decide to convene the conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects in June/July 2001. The Assembly would also decide that the scope of the conference would be the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.

The Assembly would also decide to establish a Preparatory Committee, open to participation by all States, with the participation as observers of the United Nations specialized agencies, other relevant international organizations and others to be determined by the Preparatory Committee, which would hold no less than three sessions, with its first session to be held in New York, from 28 February to 3 March 2000. The Assembly would further decide that the United Nations specialized agencies, other relevant intergovernmental organizations and relevant entities would participate, as observers, in the Preparatory Committee.

In a related provision, the Assembly would request the Committee to decide, at its first session, on the date and venue of the conference in 2001, as well as on the dates and venue of its subsequent sessions. It would also request it to make recommendations to the conference on all relevant matters, including the objective, a draft agenda, draft rules of procedure and draft final documents, which would include a programme of action, and to decide on background documents to be made available in advance.

The Assembly would endorse the report of the Secretary-General on small arms (document A/54/258), and call upon all Member States to implement the relevant recommendations contained in section IV of that report, to the extent possible and, where necessary, in cooperation with appropriate international and regional organizations and/or through international and regional cooperation.

By further terms of the text, all Member States would be invited to respond to the Secretary-General’s note verbale of 20 January, to communicate to him their views on the agenda and other relevant questions relating to the conference.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Benin, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Ecuador, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Senegal, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Turkey, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo and Zambia.

Statements

GHALEB FAHAD AL-ANBAKI (Iraq) spoke on behalf of the draft resolutions on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.7/Rev.1) and the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.8/Rev.1), stressing the importance of both in the context of international security and disarmament.

The fact that Israel’s nuclear programme remained outside the NPT, as well as the regime of the IAEA, continued to constitute a threat to Arab security. Such a grave imbalance in the region was unacceptable. As called for in the text, the General Assembly should also take appropriate measures on the prohibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities. After Israel’s unpunished 1981 attack on fully safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iraq, a binding international resolution prohibiting such attacks was necessary.

ABDULRAHMAN AL-AHMED (Saudi Arabia) said that the elimination of nuclear weapons should be top priority. Nuclear-weapon-free zones were a step in the right direction. Saudi Arabia yearned to see the Middle East as a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction, without exception. He called upon Israel to take the necessary practical steps to adhere to the NPT in accordance with resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, and to place all its nuclear facilities under the safeguard regime of the IAEA. This was the only way to make the Middle East a region free of nuclear weapons.

Introduction of Revised Drafts

HAMID BAEIDI-NEJAD (Iran) introduced a revised text for the draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/54/L.12/Rev.1), saying the text reflected the results of many consultations carried out in the previous days. In order to facilitate a smooth decision on the draft, he said the sponsors had tried to accommodate as many points of view as possible, and that he hoped the text could be adopted without a vote.

Action on Texts

The representative of Nigeria, speaking before the vote on the draft resolution on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.7/Rev.1), said that after many draft texts on the subject, what remained now was to implement the various resolutions adopted. He hoped that the current draft would have an impact. When the States of the Middle East were ready to carry out the resolution, they would find valuable lessons from the African States, which had established such a zone in their region.

The representative of Ecuador said that his Government was associating itself with consensus on the draft. However, he was surprised at the elimination of the twelfth preambular paragraph from the text, which would have the General Assembly take note of the report of the Disarmament Commission at its 1999 substantive session and welcome the principles and guidelines contained therein. He said that the paragraph constituted a fact and was relevant to the text. He did not understand how a matter of consensus arrived at so recently had been eliminated, as it jeopardized the credibility of the text.

The draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (A/C.1/54/L.7/Rev.1) was approved without a vote.

The representative of Lebanon, speaking after the vote, said he was happy to join the consensus. His country abided by the NPT, and the resolution was an extension of that Treaty. Years of war had ravaged his land and badly hurt its people. Today, however, Lebanon enjoyed internal peace and was keen on saving the region from weapons of mass destruction. The peace process needed to be reactivated in order to establish a just and lasting peace in the region.

The representative of Israel said his country had joined the consensus, as it had done for the past 19 years. It believed in the eventual establishment of a mutually verifiable zone free of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Such a zone could only be established through direct negotiations between the States in the region, after they had recognized each other and accepted peaceful relations. Consensus was defined as a general comprehensive agreement, and Egypt’s attempt to introduce revisions to the draft was not in that spirit. Despite its shortcomings, however, Israel supported the text, rather than open a Pandora’s box that might not be so easy to close.

The representative of the United States, speaking before the vote on the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.8/Rev.1) said that since the inception of the resolution the United States had opposed the text. It was inappropriate to single out one State for criticism for non-compliance with the NPT. He encouraged other countries to carefully consider this matter, and not to support the resolution.

The representative of Israel said that the draft resolution was discriminatory, unjustified, politically motivated, and counter-productive to confidence-building in the region. The resolution should be dropped once and for all. Everyone was aware of the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, yet the draft’s sponsors chose to ignore those countries posing a real threat to peace in the region, instead focusing on the one country that had never threatened its neighbours. The peace process had gained momentum in the past few months and needed nurturing and support from the world community. All who supported the process should vote against the resolution.

The draft resolution on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.8/Rev.1) was approved by a vote of 125 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Micronesia, United States), with 11 abstentions (Annex I).

The representative of Syria, speaking in explanation of the vote on the draft concerning the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.8/Rev.1) said his country had worked seriously to eliminate nuclear weapons because of their destructive effects, regionally and worldwide. Concerning the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, Israel had tried to impose its expansionist policies on the region. Thus, flowing from his country’s concern, it had supported the draft. However, it would not have liked to include the tenth preambular paragraph, which had contained a reference to the CTBT, to which his country was not a party.

The representative of India said her delegation had abstained in the vote and would clarify its position on the sixth preambular paragraph, which had referred to universal adherence to the NPT, on which her position was well-known and had remain unchanged. The focus of the text should be limited to the region which it had purported to address. Hopefully, progress would be achieved on those issues in the coming years through positive contributions by the concerned States of the region.

The Committee Chairman announced that the co-sponsors of the draft resolution entitled “Missiles” (document A/C.1/54/L.12/Rev.1) had asked that the draft be the last to be considered today. Its consideration would therefore be moved to the last place for consideration.

He said the Committee would next turn to the draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/54/L.23*).

The representative of Syria, speaking before the vote, said since the adoption of the NPT his country had felt that such a Treaty and its future obligations could not ignore the legitimate concern of non-nuclear-weapon States, representing the majority of the countries of the world, which had not received security guarantees. Moreover, those countries had not been allowed access to advanced technology in all its forms, indispensable to their development. The indefinite extension of the NPT had shown that the nuclear- weapon States had been unwilling to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

The text had not included any obligation of nuclear-weapon States to eliminate their arsenals within a reasonable time frame, he said. The text had also not referred to the illegitimacy of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, or the need to achieve universality of the Treaty to end proliferation in all its forms. In addition, the text had been limited to banning nuclear explosions and not laboratory tests. Further, on-site verification might open the door for the use of such information for political purposes. What was most surprising about the draft was that it had allowed the signatory States to take actions against the non-signatory States.

He said his country was still considering the loopholes in the CTBT itself with grave concern, especially the inclusion of the name of Israel in both categories of the Middle East and South Asia, historically unprecedented. The situation in the Middle East, resulting from the possession and further development by Israel of nuclear weapons, its refusal to join the NPT and to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards had impeded the attempt to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and had subjected the region to nuclear threats by Israel. Thus, his country would abstain in the vote.

The Committee Secretary announced that the following countries had become co-sponsors of the draft: Malaysia, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Canada, Haiti, Myanmar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the United States.

The draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/54/L.23*) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Mauritius, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania). (For details of the vote see Annex II.)

The representative of Iran, speaking in explanation of vote, said his delegation was pleased the draft had been approved by an overwhelming majority. His country, as an active advocate of the CTBT, felt that all such efforts should enjoy majority consensus. Since the last General Assembly session, a negative development had occurred with regard to the CTBT, namely its rejection by the United States Senate and the possible negative consequences of that decision on the ratification process. The international community had considered that event as a setback for nuclear non-proliferation, in general, and the Treaty, in particular.

Given those circumstances, he said his delegation had preferred that those be reflected in the present text. At the same time, it had also expected that the efforts of the international community in that regard also be embraced in the present draft. His country had sought to prevent any misinterpretation that the international community was not sensitive to the Treaty, but there had been some considerations in connection with tabling such an amendment. Realizing the need for the text’s broadest possible support, his delegation had decided not to table any amendment. Despite the recent negative development, however, he had still believed that the international community should spare no efforts to overcome that challenge and make every possible effort to uphold the integrity of the CTBT.

The representative of Pakistan said his country had been an ardent supporter of the CTBT. Despite that support, however, it could not sign the Treaty for reasons well-known and which had been illuminated last May following the Indian nuclear tests. In the post-testing period, his country had already declared a moratorium on further nuclear tests, but it had made it abundantly clear that its signature of the CTBT would take place in an atmosphere free from coercion. He had understood the words “as soon as possible” in the operative paragraph 1 of the text to mean the removal of all sanctions against his country. He had thus voted in favour of the draft.

The representative of Chile, speaking before the vote on the nuclear disarmament draft (document A/C.1/54/L.41), said that certain States had applied a double standard and had not even heeded the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. There had been paralysis in the Conference on Disarmament and the persistence of strategic concepts retaining the nuclear option, among others, had deepened his country’s distrust. Chile was part of a nuclear-weapon-free zone and a signatory of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) zone of peace. It had sought to permit a climate characterized by confidence, disarmament and arms limitation.

Hence, he said it had been incomprehensible that, on the subject of nuclear disarmament, it had been impossible to achieve substantive agreements despite the fact that the majority of countries were non-nuclear. His delegation had been prepared to motivate efforts in the Conference on Disarmament. The present session might be the last time that it would abstain in the vote on the draft, much of which had not been convincing. Any diplomatic steps next year towards strengthened mechanisms on possible nuclear disarmament would have his firmest support and participation.

The representatives of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait said they wished to co-sponsor the draft on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/54/L.41).

The Committee Secretary said that, as communicated by the representative of Myanmar, Malta was not a co-sponsor of the draft.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (A/C.1/54/L.41) by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 40 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex III).

The representative of China said his delegation had voted in favour of the draft, as it had supported its main thrust and objectives and had shared with the vast number of countries of the Non-Aligned Movement many identical views on the nuclear disarmament issue. Like chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons should be completely prohibited in order to rid the world of those weapons. All of those countries opposed a nuclear deterrence policy based on a first use of those weapons. All of them also favoured the early conclusion of a legally binding instrument to provide security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States.

He said that specific steps and a timetable for nuclear disarmament should be laid down within the framework of a nuclear weapons convention. Those States possessing the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenals still had a long way to go and should continue to carry out the nuclear disarmament process. Under the current international circumstances, the conditions necessary for implementing some of the specific measures, as proposed by the draft, were not yet there. What was essential for the promotion of nuclear disarmament was to ensure that the ABM Treaty not be weakened or repudiated and that the development and deployment of anti-missile defence systems, detrimental to security and stability, be checked.

Nuclear deterrence policies must be discarded and concrete steps must be taken to ensure the principles of the United Nations Charter, he went on. Any attempt to gain one’s security at expense of another must be met by a strong response from the international community. The above task had not been fully reflected in the draft. He hoped those deficiencies could be addressed in the future.

The representative of Japan said he had already referred to his country’s fervent desire that the use of nuclear weapons not be repeated. He had been aware of the important changes in the present text and had been ready to appreciate the efforts of the co-sponsors in that regard. One important change had been the elimination of a specific time frame for the achievement of nuclear disarmament, the inclusion of which he had thought unrealistic. The draft had referred to the importance of the NPT and its review process, as a cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

He said, however, that there were still some elements which had not made it possible to support the text as a whole, including operative paragraph 5, concerning, as a first step, the conclusion of a legally binding multilateral agreement committing States not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. It was not realistic to ask nuclear-weapon States to make such a legally binding commitment, as a first step, towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. He also had reservations on operative paragraph 12, concerning an international conference on nuclear disarmament, because that was not appropriate and might duplicate ongoing and prospective efforts. His country advocated a steady, step-by-step approach as the most effective way to advance nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Finland, on behalf of the European Union and the associated countries of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Iceland, spoke in support of the draft resolution on small arms (document A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1). He said the Union attached great importance to the fight against the destabilizing accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons.

The resolution, he said, was of particular importance this year, as it would launch the preparatory work for the 2001 conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. He had hoped that the seventh and eighth preambular paragraphs would have been introduced in a form that enjoyed consensus, as that would have enabled many countries committed to the 2001 process to co-sponsor the resolution. He regretted that did not happen.

The Union viewed the draft text as a good basis for the preparatory work, building upon the relevant recommendations contained in the report (document A/54/258) by the United Nations Group of Experts. The 2001 conference should bring about effective guidelines or instruments and a programme of action encompassing all areas of possible international cooperation on small arms. The cnference should address both supply and demand considerations, and attention should be given to illicit and licit aspects of the issue.

He said he hoped that the preparatory process would focus on substantive preparations for the conference, and that the Preparatory Committee would organize itself swiftly during the one-week session in February-March 2000. He was looking forward to working closely with other delegations to ensure that the process leading to the 2001 conference proved successful.

The representative of Egypt, speaking on landmines, said that his country had over 17 million mines left in its territory by the combatants of the Second World War. Although it had not taken part in planting them, it had removed over 11 million of those mines without foreign help. That had diverted much needed resources from other sectors.

While his country supported the humanitarian concerns addressed in the Ottawa Convention on prohibiting landmines, he said it continued to see the Convention as failing to address some of its most pressing concerns. It did not lay down a binding legal framework for States who planted mines in another country’s territory, nor did it offer assurances in the field of landmine clearance. It also did not take into consideration the legitimate right of States for self-defence, including the use of landmines in certain conditions. That right was of cardinal importance to countries with large borders and problems with terrorists.

The representative of Côte d’Ivoire asked to become a co-sponsor of draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/54/L.2*)

The representative of Morocco reiterated his country’s position on the Ottawa Convention, saying that, while it fully joined in supporting the humanitarian principles of the Convention, it could not become a signatory for the time being, due to security issues in its southern province. Morocco would, therefore, abstain in the vote.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said his country also shared the humanitarian concerns of the international community, but could not adhere to the Convention due to the unique security situation it faced. His country used anti-personnel landmines only in the limited area of the Demilitarized Zone, with little risk to civilian populations. It had declared a moratorium on the export of such mines and supported the Conference on Disarmament’s debate on the prohibition of the transport of mines, but would abstain in the vote.

The representative of Cuba said that his country was against the use of mines in internal conflicts, and any mines that could affect civilians. The final objective of negotiations should be to ensure maximum security to civilians, not to limit States’ right to preserve their territorial integrity. Cuba would abstain on the vote, since for four decades it had been subject to a policy of aggression and could not afford to renounce the use of that weapon. It was determined to create a necessary balance between humanitarian and security issues and do all possible to protect civilians from the danger of those weapons.

The Committee Secretary announced that Bulgaria, Saint Lucia and Turkmenistan had become co-sponsors of the draft resolution.

The text on the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/54/L.2) was approved by a vote of 122 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions (Annex IV).

The representative of Sri Lanka, in explanation of vote, said that his country was not in position to accede to the Ottawa Convention, but had voted in favour of the resolution because of its humanitarian objectives.

The representative of Egypt said that his country recognized the importance of curbing the humanitarian tragedy caused by landmines, but that every State had a right to protect its sovereignty and security. Every State also had a right to assistance to remove mines, especially if they did not plant those mines themselves. Egypt was dissatisfied with the results of the Ottawa process, which focused purely on the humanitarian perspective without dealing with other aspects of extreme importance, such as national security. Only in an ideal world, where there was no aggression or acts of aggression, could such a ban be effective.

The representative of Libya said his country had abstained in the vote. It opposed the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of landmines, but viewed the Ottawa Convention as only a first step. It lacked the important element of putting responsibility on warring countries for planting mines in other territories. It also failed to mention assistance to countries affected by landmines planted since the Second World War. Countries that had planted mines should be compelled to remove them and provide affected countries with assistance.

The representative of China said his country attached great importance to the humanitarian concerns of the issue, but believed that the correct way to solve it must take into account security concerns, as well. The use of landmines should be subject to reasonable and appropriate restrictions, without impinging on the rights of States to protect their sovereignty or borders. For that reason, he had abstained.

The representative of India said his country had abstained in the vote, although it was committed to the objective of non-discriminatory and universal prohibition of landmines in phased measures. The phased approach, she said, would bolster the confidence-building process, and allow States with long borders to safeguard their security needs. Demining could be facilitated by new technologies that could compensate for landmines. Any mandate, however, must reflect the needs of all States.

The representative of Turkey said he had voted yes on the resolution, although his country’s unique security concerns had kept it from acceding to the Ottawa Convention. He believed that a ban on landmines could only be achieved in stages. The Conference on Disarmament was the appropriate forum to address the security concerns of those States not yet party to the Ottawa Convention.

The representative of Benin said he had missed the vote, but wished to go on record as being in favour of the draft resolutions on the CTBT, nuclear disarmament and the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

The representative of Israel said his country supported the goal of the Ottawa Convention as referred to in the draft text, and was opposed to the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines. Due to its unique security situation, however, threatened with hostile neighbours and terrorists, Israel reserved the right to use landmines to protect its citizens. It had ceased production of anti-personnel landmines, declared a moratorium on their export, and would continue to take part in all international efforts to reduce and eventually make all forms of mines obsolete. But, for now, it had abstained in the vote on the resolution.

The representative of Myanmar said he wished to record his vote on the draft as an abstention. He respected the position of other States that had signed the Ottawa Convention. However, his country did not participate, nor was it a signatory. A sweeping ban on landmines was unnecessary and unjustified. The problem was the indiscriminate use of mines, as well as the transfer of them –- and that needed to be addressed. It was essential that the right of self- defence in national security be recognized and respected when dealing with the issue.

The representative of Jordan said he wished to record that his vote on the draft would have been in favour.

The representative of Kazakhstan, who was also absent for the vote, said his country would have abstained.

The representative of Suriname said he would have voted in favour of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

The representative of Singapore said his country supported all initiatives against the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines, but believed that legitimate security concerns could not be ignored. A blanket ban might be counter-productive, as some counties needed to use such weapons. His country would continue to work for a durable and truly global solution to this problem.

The representative of France, speaking on the draft on small arms (document A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1), asked for separate vote on the eighth preambular paragraph, which reaffirmed the right of self-determination of all peoples. He did not believe the paragraph belonged in the draft, as it would cause confusion and seem to introduce idea that the use of armed force might be a way of settling disputes. Thus, he asked for a separate vote on the paragraph, which he hoped would remove it from a resolution he otherwise approved of.

The Secretary said that Iceland had withdrawn its name from sponsorship of the draft. Belgium, Bolivia, El Salvador, Sierra Leone, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Venezuela, Italy, Finland, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Brazil, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Canada, Ireland, Mali, Germany, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Guatemala had all joined as sponsors.

In a separate vote, the Committee approved the eighth preambular paragraph of the resolution on small arms (document A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1) by a vote of 127 in favour to 1 against (Myanmar), with 14 abstentions (Annex V).

The resolution on small arms as a whole was approved by a vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Kuwait, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia) (Annex VI).

The representative of South Africa supported the resolution, but said that the important role of civil society in the successful outcome of the conference next year should have been properly highlighted. He also questioned the establishment of the study group envisaged in operative paragraph 14 of the text, which would establish a parallel mechanism to the preparatory committee that would be both costly and not representative of all States. Funds earmarked to such a study should be applied to the cost of the conference.

The representative of the Russian Federation said his country fully and unconditionally supported efforts to suppress the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons. It supported the basic provisions of the draft resolution, including the convening of the conference, and he was certain that Russia would make a substantive contribution to it. However, he could not agree with the eighth preambular paragraph, which watered down and distorted the contents of the resolution. Such a paragraph could be used as a cover for those forces dealing with illicit traffic in weapons. On that basis, he had voted against the paragraph, and was compelled to abstain from the resolution as a whole, although he agreed with a majority of its provisions.

The representative of Egypt said he had voted in favour of the draft text. The work of the panel of governmental experts needed to be done in a just, non- discriminatory manner. Efforts to curb small arms should not be viewed as measures to curb States’ rights to self-defence. Small arms and light weapons should not be portrayed as the cause of conflict, but only as catalysts exacerbating them.

The representative of Pakistan said he had voted in favour of the text. He believed the resolution was a balanced one, but had reservations about operative paragraph 14. The working process of the panel of governmental experts was non-transparent. It was also non-representative of the countries most affected by the problem of small arms, and its recommendations were imposed on all the other States. Discussions on the issue needed to be as broad-based as possible. Pakistan had chosen not to oppose the paragraph in a spirit of compromise, but it maintained the right to bring up its concerns in all other appropriate forums.

The representative of Israel said his country viewed the proliferation of small arms gravely. It supported international efforts at curbing such weaponry and would welcome a continuation of the international dialogue. It voted in favour of the draft as a whole, but abstained on the eighth preambular paragraph. The issue of self-determination should be addressed in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) of the General Assembly.

The representative of Nepal said that his country had supported the resolution. Given the scope of the problem in small arms, the international community should undertake concerted efforts to curb it without delay.

The representative of Norway said that strong efforts should be made in a practical, concerted way to ensure an open and transparent preparatory process. Operative paragraph 14 of the text was inconsistent with that objective. The preparatory committee should decide on all matters relevant to the conference. There should be no parallel process. Any work related to the preparatory process should be made by the preparatory committee itself. The participation of non-governmental organizations would provide useful knowledge the conference should benefit from and operative paragraph 14 should secure their participation.

The representative of Oman said he supported all endeavours on curbing the small arms problem, but operative paragraph 14(a) did not provide the right or appropriate venue for all Member States.

The representative of Cuba said he regretted that it had not been possible to achieve a consensus by all delegations. There could not be unconditional support for the recommendations of the group of governmental experts. It was necessary to take into account the opinions of other Member States. He supported the eighth preambular paragraph, and voted in favour of it, as he did for the whole text. The representative of Egypt said that following numerous consultations on the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/54/L.21), an agreement had been reached on amending operative paragraph 4(a) so that the beginning of it reads as follows: “The early expansion of the scope of the Register”. In light of that amendment he hoped the secretariat would give out a revised copy of the text so a vote could be taken tomorrow.

(annexes follow) ANNEX I

Vote on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation

The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.8/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 3 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

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

Abstain: Barbados, Canada, Iceland, India, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Marshall Islands, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial New Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uzbekistan.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

The draft resolution in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.23) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, 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, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstain: Bhutan, India, Mauritius, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament

The draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/54/L.41) was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 40 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslva Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Chile, Georgia, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sweden, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Ottawa Convention

The draft resolution on implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/54/L.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Federated States of Micronesia, India, Iran, Israel, Latvia, Libya, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Syria, United States, Viet Nam.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uzbekistan.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Eighth Preambular Paragraph on Small Arms

The eighth preambular paragraph, concerning the right to self- determination, of the draft resolution on small arms (document A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 1 against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Russian Federation.

Abstain: Azerbaijan, France, Georgia, Federated States of Micronesia, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Myanmar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Morocco, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Small Arms

The draft resolution on small arms (document A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, 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, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, 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, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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: Kuwait, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia.

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

* *** *