DRAFT TEXT CALLING FOR DISARMAMENT AIMED AT ELIMINATING NUCLEAR WEAPONS APPROVED IN DISARMEMENT COMMITTEE BY VOTE OF 128-0-12
Press Release
GA/DIS/3163
DRAFT TEXT CALLING FOR DISARMAMENT AIMED AT ELIMINATING NUCLEAR WEAPONS APPROVED IN DISARMEMENT COMMITTEE BY VOTE OF 128-0-12
19991109Resolutions Also Approved on Missiles, New Agenda for Disarmament, Transparency in Armaments
The General Assembly would call for the determined pursuit by the nuclear- weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, according to one of four draft resolutions approved this orning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Scurity).
By further terms of the text, approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions, the Assembly would call upon all States to redouble their efforts to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among others, nuclear weapons, confirming and strengthening, if necessary, their policies not to export equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to the proliferation of those weapons. (For details of the vote see Annex XI.)
Prior to approval of the draft, the Committee took three separate recorded votes. It decided to retain the second preambular paragraph, concerning recent nuclear tests, by a vote of 130 in favour to 1 against (India), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Israel, Pakistan, Sierra Leone) (Annex VIII).
The Committee approved the first operative paragraph by a vote of 134 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 3 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Pakistan) (Annex IX). By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of achieving universal adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Operative paragraph 9, underlining the importance of the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT and calling upon all States parties to the Treaty to reaffirm the decisions and resolution adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, was approved by a vote of 103 in favour to 1 against (France), with 27 abstentions. (Annex X)
The Committee approved a draft resolution on a new agenda for a nuclear- weapon-free world by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 13 against, with 37 abstentions (Annex IV). Among its provisions was a call for the examination of ways and means to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies so as to enhance strategic stability, facilitate the process of the elimination of those weapons, and contribute to international confidence and security.
(page 1a follows
First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3163 26th Meeting (AM) 9 November 1999
Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, the Committee held two separate votes on the text. By a vote of 128 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 3 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Latvia), it voted to retain the seventh operative paragraph, calling upon States that had not yet done so to adhere unconditionally and without delay to the NPT (Annex II).
It approved operative paragraph 18 by a vote of 128 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan, Republic of Korea) (Annex III). That provision calls for the conclusion of an internationally legally binding instrument to effectively assure non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
A text on transparency in armaments 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. The draft was approved by a vote of 81 in favour to 45 against, with 13 abstentions (Annex VII).
Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, the Committee took separate votes. By a vote of 132 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 3 abstentions (Canada, Cuba, Pakistan) (Annex V), the Committee decided to retain the eighth preambular paragraph, which stresses the need to achieve universality of the NPT and of the Conventions on Biological and Chemical Weapons, with a view to the total elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.
The Committee also approved operative paragraph 4(b) by a vote of 77 in favour to 45 against, with 16 abstentions (Annex VI). By its terms, the Secretary-General would be requested to report to the next Assembly session on 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 to transfers of equipment and technology directly related to the development and manufacture of such weapons.
A new draft resolution entitled Missiles would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the issue of missiles in all its aspects, and to submit a report to the Assembly at its fifty-fifth session. The Assembly would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session. The draft was approved by a vote of 65 in favour to none against, with 58 abstentions (Annex I).
Statements on drafts were made by Cuba, Finland (on behalf of the European Union), France, United States, Turkey, Republic of Korea, Japan, United Kingdom, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Mozambique, Syria, Mexico, China, Belgium, India, Algeria, Australia, Poland, Mauritius, Canada, Solomon Islands, Egypt, South Africa, Israel, New Zealand, Jordan, Russian Federation and Colombia.
The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to conclude its consideration of and action on all draft resolutions.
Committee Work Programme
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to conclude its action on all disarmament- and security-related draft decisions. It had before it four drafts on nuclear disarmament, including one on missiles, and a text on transparency in armaments.
Under the terms of a text on nuclear disarmament with a view to the elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.9/Rev.1), the Assembly would call for the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
The Assembly would call upon all States to redouble their efforts to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among others, nuclear weapons, confirming and strengthening, if necessary, their policies not to export equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to the proliferation of those weapons.
In that connection, the Assembly would stress that, in order to make advancements towards the ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, it was important and necessary to pursue such actions as:
-- The early signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test- Ban Treaty (CTBT) by all States, especially by those States whose ratification was required for its entry into force, with a view to its early entry into force, as well as a cessation of nuclear tests pending its entry into force;
-- Intensive negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on, and their early conclusion of, a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and, pending its entry into force, a moratorium of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons;
-- Multilateral discussions on possible future steps on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation;
-- The early entry into force of the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II) and the early commencement and conclusion of negotiations for START III by the Russian Federation and the United States, and the continuation of the process beyond START III; and
-- Further efforts by the five nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally and through their negotiations.
In a further provision, the Assembly would underline the vital importance of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) for the preservation and strengthening of the regime anchored therein. It would call upon all States parties to that Treaty to reaffirm their decisions, as well as the resolution adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension
Conference of the Treaty, and to intensify their efforts with a view to reaching an agreement on updated objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, based on the review of achievements since 1995.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Belgium, Croatia, Netherlands and Japan.
According to a draft resolution entitled Missiles, sponsored by Iran (document A/C.1/54/L.12/Rev.2), the Assembly, convinced of the need for a comprehensive approach towards missiles in a balanced and non-discriminatory manner as a contribution to international peace and security, would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of all Member States on the issue of missiles in all its aspects, and to submit a report to the Assembly at its fifty-fifth session. The Assembly would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.
By the terms of a draft resolution entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/54/L.18), the General Assembly would call for the examination of ways and means to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies so as to enhance strategic stability, facilitate the process of the elimination of those weapons, and contribute to international confidence and security.
It would call upon the nuclear-weapon States to make an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear arsenals and to engage without delay in an accelerated process of negotiations, thus achieving nuclear disarmament to which they were committed under article VI of the NPT.
The Assembly would also call upon the nuclear-weapon States to take early steps to: reduce tactical nuclear weapons with a view to the elimination, as an early part of nuclear arms reductions; examine the possibilities for and proceed to the de-alerting and the removal of nuclear warheads from delivery vehicles; demonstrate transparency on their nuclear arsenals and fissile material inventories; and place all fissile materials for nuclear weapons declared to be in excess of military requirements under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, in the framework of the voluntary safeguards agreements in place.
In a related provision, the Assembly would call upon those three States that were nuclear-weapon capable and that had not yet acceded to the NPT to reverse, clearly and urgently, the pursuit of all nuclear weapons development or deployment and to refrain from any action which could undermine the regional and international peace and security and the efforts of the international community towards nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation.
It would also call upon the United States and the Russian Federation to bring START II into force without further delay and to commence negotiations on START III with a view to its early conclusion. It would further call upon those States to undertake necessary steps towards the seamless integration of all five nuclear-weapon States into the process, leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
The Assembly would further call upon those States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify, unconditionally and without delay, the CTBT and, pending its entry into force, to observe a moratorium on nuclear tests. It would call upon those States that had not yet done so to: adhere unconditionally and without delay to the NPT and to take all the necessary measures which flowed from adherence to that instrument as non-nuclear-weapon States; and to conclude full- scope safeguards agreements with the IAEA and to conclude additional protocols to their safeguards agreements on the basis of the Model Protocol approved by the Board of Governors of the Agency on 15 May 1997.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
A draft text sponsored by Egypt, Nigeria and Swaziland, on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/54/L.21/Rev.1), 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 the year 2000 and taking into account the views submitted by Member States, to report to the fifty-fifth session on: the early expansion of the scope of the Register; and 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.
By the terms of a draft resolution on negotiations banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes (document A/C.1/54/L.30), the Assembly would urge the Conference on Disarmament to establish, under the agenda item on cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, an ad hoc committee to negotiate a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear devices. It would urge the Conference to re-establish its ad hoc committee at the beginning of the 2000 session.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.
Action on Texts
The representative of Cuba, speaking before the vote on the draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/54/L.12/Rev.2), said it was an innovative and timely initiative. His country had carefully followed the evolution of the draft, and he felt that the revised text took into account the concerns of many delegations, including his own. The best way to advance on the issue of missiles was to begin by requesting the opinions of Member States, as the text did. The Committee was the right forum for multilateral discussions on the issue. Therefore, his country would vote for the draft resolution and hoped it would get wide support.
The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union and the associated countries, said he recognized the importance of the topic, and supported the basic thrust of the text, but found it vague on the basic concern of missile proliferation and missile technologies. His country would, therefore, abstain.
The representative of France said his country would abstain because of the laconic wording of the draft text, which gave rise to questions on the most important problem of missile proliferation. He wondered what exactly the co-sponsors meant by their call for a global, balanced, non-discriminatory approach in field of missiles. The problem needed to be looked at in terms of the threat posed by the means of delivery for weapons of mass destruction. Efforts already made by a number of countries should be taken into account. France was prepared to help conduct a genuine debate on missiles and the best ways to deal with them, and he hoped that the true dimensions of the problem would eventually be clearly acknowledged.
The draft on missiles (document A/C.1/54/L.12/Rev.2) was approved by a vote of 65 in favour to none against, with 58 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)
Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said he understood the sentiment behind the draft text, but felt it was premature to bring the issue of missiles before the United Nations. The wording of the draft was too vague and did not address key issues. He assumed its main point was to prevent missile proliferation, although the text did not say that specifically. In seeking to curb missile proliferation, the most effective way was on a regional basis, between the States directly affected. He seriously doubted whether such a vague initiative would enhance international security.
The representative of Turkey said that his countrys proximity to a region where there was a proliferation of missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction had caused him to welcome the draft resolution, in principle. The texts vagueness, however, particularly in the preambular paragraphs, could be misinterpreted as tacit approval of missile deployment, and it was for that reason his country abstained.
The representative of the Republic of Korea agreed that the proliferation of missiles as a means of delivering weapons of mass destruction was a serious threat to international security. In light of recent missile tests by North
Korea, and in South Asia, there was an urgent need for the United Nations to address the issue. The draft resolution, however, failed to address the problem adequately and, therefore, his country abstained.
The representative of Japan shared concerns about the proliferation of missiles, and said he appreciated efforts made by the Iranian delegation in trying to focus the attention of the Committee on the problem. He had reservations about the text, however, as it contained no explicit reference to proliferation of missiles or recognition of efforts made by other States, including Japan.
Turning to the draft on the new agenda (document A/C.1/54/L.18), the representative of the United Kingdom said he welcomed the willingness of the texts sponsors to engage in dialogue. He, nevertheless, felt obliged to vote against the text. His country had made clear its commitment to nuclear disarmament and to article VI of the NPT, which had been given recent practical measures, as announced in 1998 in his countrys strategic defence review. Among them were significant reductions in and transparency about the British nuclear deterrent, further underlined by its ratification of the CTBT that same year. He shared the frustration of the sponsors of the text at the slow pace of wider progress towards nuclear disarmament. As such, his country had continued to urge faster bilateral progress, and it was eager to see the test-ban Treaty enter into force at the earliest opportunity.
He said his delegation was impatient to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, the internationally agreed next step towards nuclear disarmament. While the present text had included support for all those measures, would going beyond that internationally agreed agenda and imposing further measures, including those which did not enjoy consensus support, promote further progress? In addition, the inclusion in the text of detaching warheads from their delivery vehicles was incompatible with the maintenance of a minimum credible deterrent.
The representative of Argentina, also speaking before the vote on the new agenda text, said her country had shared the objectives of the international community in favour of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. Unfortunately, the draft contained elements which her country had not shared. She hoped that, in the future, the draft would be elaborated in terms which were acceptable to a greater number of members. For that reason, her delegation would abstain in the vote.
The representative of Saudi Arabia said he wished to join the co-sponsors of the text.
The representative of France said the Committee was being asked to take a decision for the second year in a row on the need for a new agenda. Those in favour of the text had insisted on the median approach in improving the current text. Yet, the draft continued to present a number of substantial problems. The proposals were just as dangerous and subject to criticism over its ambiguous nature. The overall approach was a dangerous one. Why the call for a new agenda? His country would continue to implement the programme of action defined by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT.
He said his country could not subscribe to the appeal for a new agenda, whose contents would call into question that 1995 agenda, namely, the implementation of the CTBT, conclusion and implementation of a fissile material cut-off treaty, and the determination of nuclear-weapon States to progress systematically and gradually in reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, and general and complete disarmament under strict and internationally effective monitoring. Had those measures become outdated? he asked. Why, for example, when there was reference in operative paragraph 16 on the importance of the full implementation of the NPT, was there also an appeal for a new agenda? That was an obvious contradiction, unless that had been designed to mask some ulterior motives.
To the impressive list of proposals made in the text, he said he would refer to two of them. The United Nations Charter had acknowledged the right of all States to self-defence. Defence policies could not be decided upon by anyone other than the State concerned. Thus, how could the sponsors of the text state that the international community would determine the defence needs of others? Frances nuclear policy had been based on the principle of the lowest possible armaments compatible with its security. It was currently adapting its doctrine to the emergence of potential new threats.
Why was there a proposal for an international conference on nuclear weapons, when that had always been opposed by the nuclear-weapon States? he asked. The process of reducing nuclear arsenals would not be more effective if dealt with in such a framework. Moreover, what would be its usefulness if the nuclear-weapon States did not participate? The 2000 NPT Review Conference was the ideal forum for such discussions.
Continuing, he noted that the text had reflected ambiguity concerning the NPTs last Review Conference in 1995. A short clause should be inserted at the beginning of operative paragraph 12, calling upon the Conference on Disarmament to establish, without conditions, the ad hoc committee under item 1 of its agenda entitled Cessation of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, and so forth. The rest of the sentence would remain unchanged. The absence of that insertion had raised the question of whether the co-sponsors were speaking a dual language. Those in favour of the text had become the most ardent advocates of an approach to nuclear disarmament that embraced a policy of constructive ambiguity and "double talk". The draft had contained those two aspects. Nuclear disarmament was too grave a topic to be dealt with in an ambiguous or contradictory manner. His straight talking delegation would vote against the text.
The representative of Mozambique said he wished to co-sponsor the new agenda draft.
The representative of Cuba said the text had not reflected his countrys traditional position on nuclear disarmament, but the fact that it had emphasized the need for a new agenda had given it commendable merits. The final balance sheet of the draft was positive and its adoption would contribute, as part of a broad group of other initiatives, to the promotion of nuclear disarmament. Thus, Cuba would vote in favour of the draft as a whole. That positive vote
should not mean that it had approved of each idea contained therein. Among the paragraphs of concern, and on which separate votes had been requested, were operative paragraphs 7 and 18.
She said her country was not a party to the NPT as that was discriminatory and selective in its essence. It had legitimized nuclear Powers and had created two categories of States. That was not the way to advance the vital objective of nuclear disarmament and the total elimination of those weapons. For that reason, her delegation would abstain in the separate vote on operative paragraph 7. Concerning operative paragraph 18, security guarantees for non- nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons should be universal and unconditional. Her country could not accept that such guarantees would be granted only to States parties of a given treaty. Since she had recognized the good intentions of the main texts sponsors and their priority interest in achieving nuclear disarmament, she would vote in favour of the draft as a whole.
The representative of Syria drew attention to an error in the Arabic translation of operative paragraph 16 of the new agenda draft, which should read NPT instead of CTBT.
The representatives of Kuwait, Burkina Faso, Botswana, Nigeria, Guinea and Benin said their delegation would have voted in favour of the draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/54/L.12/Rev.2).
The representative of Guyana said he would have voted in favour yesterday of the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.8/Rev.1).
The representative of Solomon Islands asked if his delegation could take a point of personal privilege after the vote.
The Committee CHAIRMAN said that could only be done in the framework of general statements.
The representative of Mexico said his delegation was a co-sponsor of the text on a new agenda and, for that reason, he had no right to explain his vote nor speak out right now to say every delegation had the right to vote as it pleased. But, no delegation had the right to offend those who had submitted resolutions. The draft had not been presented by seven delegations; the number of co-sponsors was more than 60 right now, and in the text, there were no concealed intentions.
The Committee Secretary said the following countries had joined as co-sponsors to the new agenda draft: Jamaica, Angola, Guyana, Saudi Arabia and Mozambique.
During action on a separate vote on operative paragraph 7, the representative of Algeria, on a point of order, said it had been agreed last year that whenever the Committee was acting on a separate vote, the Committee Secretary should read out the verbatim text of the paragraph.
In a separate recorded vote on operative paragraph 7, calling for universal adherence to the NPT, the Committee voted to retain the paragraph by 128 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 3 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Latvia). (Annex II)
In another separate recorded vote on operative paragraph 18, calling for the conclusion of an internationally legally binding instrument of security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT, the Committee voted to retain it by 128 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan, Republic of Korea). (Annex III)
The Committee then approved the draft resolution as a whole on a new agenda (document A/C.1/54/L.18) by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 13 against with 37 abstentions. (Annex IV)
The representative of China, speaking in explanation of vote on the new agenda draft, said his country had always supported the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons and achieving, at an early date, a nuclear-weapon-free world. Thus, he had fully understood the request of the international community regarding nuclear disarmament. His delegation had also supported the goals of the text, namely, the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, as well as some of the specific steps contained therein, including: a call on the nuclear-weapon States to review their nuclear doctrines; conclusion of an internationally legally binding instrument to effectively assure non- nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; strengthening the NPT; and establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones.
He said that preserving the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems -- the ABM Treaty - and preventing its repudiation and stopping the development of anti-ballistic missile systems had been the necessary conditions for progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In that connection, the draft had rightly pointed out that the ABM Treaty remained a cornerstone of strategic stability. Other proposed measures, however, such as the de-alerting of nuclear weapons, the removal of nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles, and the transparency of nuclear arsenals and fissile material stockpiles, could only be undertaken in an international environment of peace, security, stability and trust, and should be linked with negotiations on nuclear disarmament.
Under the current unsettling international circumstances, he said the time had not yet come and the necessary conditions were not yet there for taking such measures. The draft had also failed to urge all nuclear-weapon States to commit themselves non-first-use of nuclear weapons and their non-use or threat of use against all non-nuclear-weapon States. Those elements, however, were crucial to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In view of those reasons, his delegation had abstained in the vote.
The representative of Belgium, speaking after the vote on behalf of Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, explained his abstention on the new agenda draft resolution (document
A/C.1/54/L.18). He said that he fully shared the commitment to nuclear disarmament expressed in the draft, and believed that that goal could best be achieved by the rapid continuation of the step-by-step process.
He recognized that the authors of the resolution had made a serious attempt to take into account some of the objections to the text that had been adopted last year, and he could support many of the recommendations. Still, a number of elements remained that did not reflect the most appropriate way to achieve the ultimate objectives already agreed upon.
He continued to attach the utmost importance to the NPT as the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime. He strongly believed that progress on nuclear disarmament could only be achieved by means of the processes already under way, those based on the NPT and the goals set out in the principles and objectives of 1995. Those had already led to considerable progress, but had also sustained serious setbacks. Efforts to overcome the setbacks and achieve further progress should be redoubled on the basis of the agreed principles and objectives.
There was an urgent need to revitalize the bilateral negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation with a view to secure entry into force of START II and the opening the negotiations of START III without delay. Despite the negative vote by the United States Senate, international efforts towards the early entry into force of the CTBT must be pursued with increased determination. The Conference on Disarmament should begin negotiations on a fissile missile cut-off treaty without delay.
Nuclear disarmament was primarily a responsibility of the nuclear-weapon States, he went on, but was a legitimate concern of the whole international community. He supported the establishment of an ad hoc working group by the Conference on Disarmament to study ways and means to exchange information to enhance the process of nuclear disarmament. Countries would not be judged by resolutions or declarations, but by their actions towards those goals. The most immediate objectives at the current juncture were to achieve a successful outcome of the NPT Review Conference next year and the start of fissile material negotiations at the very outset of the next session of the Conference on Disarmament.
The representative of India, also speaking after vote on the new agenda draft, said genesis of the text had begun with a Joint Declaration issued in Dublin on behalf of eight countries in June 1998. Her country had welcomed that Declaration, but the draft resolution had gone far beyond its parameters. The Final Document of the tenth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament had remained the only consensus document on disarmament, adopted by the international community as a whole. The Final Document had contained a programme of action, which remained only partially implemented. Any future agenda would have to take into account, as the starting premise, implementation of that action programme. Clearly, on the most important element, namely, nuclear disarmament, the international community had achieved little progress.
She said the question, therefore, was whether there was a need for new agenda, when the most important element in the existing agenda had not yet been accomplished. The draft text had also included extraneous elements, which had been adopted in other forums. She had rejected operative paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, as those were not only extraneous to the text, but also completely divorced from the reality on the ground. Her country no longer had the nuclear-weapon option, as that option had been exercised. The text was also based on fallacious concepts, such as those three States that are nuclear weapons capable and that have not acceded to NPT. That phrase was analytically hollow and did not correspond to reality.
Continuing, she said the reference to a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia was absurd and called into question the agreed principle that the arrangements for such zones should be freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned, as endorsed by the Disarmament Commission at its last substantive session. Given the current realities, the proposal for a nuclear- weapon-free zone in South Asia had as much validity as its creation in East Asia, Western Europe or North America. Given the ominous nature of the text, there was surprising lack of any mention of doctrines of first-use of nuclear weapons. Similarly, the text ignored the efforts in certain countries to refine and modernize nuclear weapons for retention well into the next millennium.
Building missile defences could further erode the international climate, she said. Instead of emphasizing that peril, the resolution had redrafted some preambular paragraphs to make them more palatable to the nuclear-weapon States. At the same time, it was silent on the current impasse in the Conference on Disarmament, which was due to the inflexibility of some delegations on the question of nuclear disarmament and outer space, while ignoring the wishes of vast majority of Conference members. The draft was also silent on the multifarious sources of proliferation which the NPT had failed to stem. All such efforts would be limited by that unequal and discriminatory framework of obligations.
She said a new agenda could not succeed in the old framework of the NPT. There was a need to move beyond the old framework towards a durable international security system based on equal and legitimate security for all. The text should have included proposals contained in the final document of the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1998 in South Africa. That final document had included concrete proposals towards a nuclear-weapon-free world. She would have preferred the designation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, as a crime against humanity. Although she had shared the objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, she remained unconvinced of the utility of an exercise bound by the flawed and discriminatory approaches of the NPT, and had, therefore, voted against the draft as a whole.
The representative of the United States said he had voted no on the new agenda resolution because it could not support the fundamental premise of a need for a new agenda. A broad multilateral disarmament agenda already existed, however slow and frustrating. Results could best be achieved through practical, incremental steps, taking into account the realities of the international environment. Such steps were painstaking, but the only way to achieve real progress.
The current resolution, he said, called on nuclear States to take speedy efforts towards the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. But, if the
undertakings already made were not sufficient, what good did it do to add new ones? International conferences had their place, but there were already more than could be put to good use. The current disarmament agenda was full enough. Concrete, practical measures, such as a cut-off treaty on the production of fissile material for weapons, were the sort of steps needed to reinvigorate the current disarmament agenda.
The representative of Japan said he shared the goal of a nuclear-weapon- free world and appreciated the enthusiasm of the drafts co-sponsors to lay out concrete measures to reach that goal. There was no other way towards the objective than proceeding step by step through realistic concrete measures. It was not constructive to take a confrontational attitude towards the nuclear- weapon States, nor would any attempt to short-cut the process be productive. While there were definite improvements in the text of this years resolution, it still betrayed a scepticism towards the nuclear-weapon States and, therefore, although his country fully supported the goals of the draft resolution, it abstained in the vote.
The representative of Turkey said he believed that systematic and progressive efforts on part of nuclear-weapon States were essential towards complete disarmament. Improvements in this years draft text, both in language and substance, had enabled him to abstain in the vote, whereas last year he voted no.
The representative of Algeria said that in spite of some imperfections, his country had voted in favour of the resolution. He supported all efforts aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. He welcomed the improvements made this year to the draft resolution and hoped that the co-sponsors would continue to improve it, to enable more countries to support it in the future.
The representative of Syria said his country was committed to nuclear disarmament and supported the draft resolution, although it had reservations on operative paragraph 9 of the text, which dealt with the CTBT.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said he understood the main thrust of the draft resolution and supported some of its elements. But, any disarmament regime needed to be based on reality. A practical, incremental approach, along with strengthening of existing regimes, was more important than producing new agreements. For these reasons, he had abstained.
The representative of Australia said that the resolution warranted a great deal of thought, and called important unfinished business to attention in a measured and even-handed way. It had provoked much discussion, not only in the Committee, but also in national forums. Specifics of the resolution deserved strong support, for example, upholding the importance of the NPT and its universality. He was concerned, however, with the implications of the resolution, in particular, those preambular paragraphs that cast doubt on the intention of the nuclear-weapon States to pursue negotiations on disarmament in good faith. That implied that the current disarmament regime was failing, an assumption which would he could not agree. Therefore, unable to support resolution, he had abstained in the vote.
The representative of Poland said he had voted no on the resolution, not because he disagreed with its content, but because the international community needed to be realistic in its efforts towards disarmament. During the passed 20 years, much had been accomplished. There were, of course, setbacks recently, but those were only natural in such a rapidly changing world. The draft resolution tried to artificially accelerate the process, not on the main road, but on a sidetrack where the main players -- the permanent members of the Security Council -- were absent. Without their participation, the best new agenda would not be able to accelerate the disarmament process.
The representative of Mauritius said he had abstained in the vote because of operative paragraph 9, which called upon States not signed the CTBT to do so. His country was not a signatory of that Treaty because it failed to provide the framework for a timetable for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
The representative of Canada said he had abstained from voting on the resolution last year and decided, after careful, high-level consideration, to do the same this year. The text had evolved considerably and he shared much of the new agenda coalitions assessment of the serious strains on NPT-based nuclear disarmament and on the non-proliferation regime. The resolution remained a timely, pointed reminder of the urgent need for progress on both these fronts.
He said, however, that he believed that the concerted efforts needed to meet those challenges would require the broadest possible base of support. The nuclear-weapon States needed to be engaged if the goals of the new agenda resolution were to be achieved. The issues addressed by the resolution would come up again in the April/May 2000 NPT Review Conference, when the accountability promised in the indefinite extension of the Treaty in 1995 would be put to an important public test. Canada would be working to ensure that the Conference reinforced the Treaty and restored momentum to the fulfilment of its goals.
He then requested that, in light of a call taken for a vote on the draft resolution on the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/54/L.30), there be a 30-minute suspension of the meeting for the co-sponsors to meet and discuss how to proceed.
The representative of the Solomon Islands said he felt that the heat of the insult delivered to his delegation and other co-sponsors of the new agenda resolution had cooled, and he would not respond, but rather simply not talk to the delegate in the delegates bar.
The Chairman agreed on a half-hour break.
Speaking on a point of order, the representative of Egypt suggested there be a vote on the resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/54/L.21/Rev.1) before the break.
The representative of Japan, on a point of order, requested that action on the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/54/L.9/Rev.1) also be taken before suspension of meeting.
The representative of Mexico said that 24 hours had not yet elapsed since his delegation had received the revised version of that draft, and suggested it be the last resolution taken up today.
The representative of Egypt said he preferred to take action on the transparency resolution before the suspension of the meeting.
The Chairman agreed to take a decision on the draft on transparency in armaments.
The representative of Finland spoke, on behalf of the European Union and associated States, before the vote on transparency in armaments. He said all the countries he represented would vote against the draft, as it was not acceptable on the grounds of principle. It put the concept of transparency in conventional arms on a par with transparency in weapons of mass destruction. It reinforced the attempted linkage between greater transparency in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and greater transparency in weapons of mass destruction. Those could not be linked.
The representative of Argentina said that, in spite of fact that the Register of Conventional Arms referred to those weapons, the principle of transparency could be applied to weapons of mass destruction, according to the report of the group of governmental experts on the functioning of the United Nations Register. The development of transparency mechanisms in the field of weapons of mass destruction, however, should not undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of existing mechanisms providing transparency in conventional arms, such as the United Nations Register. For that reason, she would abstain.
The representative of South Africa said that he supported the draft resolution based on the belief that the principles of transparency should also apply to nuclear weapons and the transfer of technology directly related to those weapons. He would abstain from the vote, however, because he did not agree with operative paragraph 4(b) of the text, which stated that a link should be established between transparency of weapons of mass destruction and conventional transparency.
The representative of Saudi Arabia said he wished to join the co-sponsors of the resolution.
In a separate vote on the eighth preambular paragraph of the draft on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/54/L.21/Rev.1) which concerns universality of the NPT, Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention, the paragraph was approved by 132 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 3 abstentions (Canada, Cuba, Pakistan) (Annex V).
In a further separate vote, operative paragraph 4(b), which concerns the Register and weapons of mass destruction, was approved by 77 in favour to 45 against, with 16 abstentions (Annex VI).
The resolution on transparency in armaments as a whole was approved by a vote of 81 in favour to 45 against, with 13 abstentions (Annex VII).
The representative of China, in explanation of the vote after the vote, said that transparency was the first step towards the complete prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction. The country possessing the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal should continue to take the lead in lowering its stockpile, thereby creating conditions for the transparency and the eventual destruction of such weapons. Those actions needed to be taken against a background of confidence, peace and security. Some countries, however, were still pursuing the doctrine of the first use of nuclear weapons, and contemplating undermining the ABM Treaty. Therefore, conditions were not right for transparency in nuclear weapons. Based on divergent views regarding the convening of the group of governmental experts and the expansion of the scope of the conventional arms register, his country had abstained.
The representative of Canada said he had erred in his vote on the eighth preambular paragraph of the text. He had meant to vote yes, not abstain.
The representative of Israel said he had voted against the resolution, because he did not think it was useful to expand the Register of Conventional Arms, as it might impair the functioning of the Register. Rather, he encouraged those States that had not yet joined the Register to do so. He was surprised that some of the sponsors of the resolution from the Middle East had called for expanding the Register, even though they themselves had failed to submit reports to it. Transparency could only be effective if based on regional arms control agreements and reciprocity.
The Committee then turned to the draft on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/54/L.9/Rev.1), on which three separate votes would be taken: on preambular paragraph 2; operative paragraph 1; and operative paragraph 9, before action on the draft as a whole.
The representative of New Zealand, spoke on behalf of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, South Africa and Sweden, in explanation of vote before the vote on operative paragraph 9.
[Operative paragraph 9 underlines the vital importance of the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT for the preservation and strengthening of the regime anchored therein, and calls upon all States parties to that Treaty to reaffirm the decisions, as well as the resolution adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Treaty, and to intensify their efforts with a view to reaching an agreement on updated objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, based on the review of the achievements since 1995.]
He said the language in the paragraph had raised significant problems for those delegations. In particular, it had not considered that the calls contained therein were consistent with the mandate of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, which was clear and unambiguous and had been elaborated in Decision 1 of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference. It was on the basis of that mandate that the work of the 2000 Review Conference would proceed and decisions would be taken. That was a consensus mandate, but the language in operative paragraph 9 of the draft was misleading and strayed from that mandate, raising questions about the status of agreements reached in 1995.
He said the paragraph had also prejudged the outcome of the 2000 Review Conference, whose imperative was to ensure the full implementation of the 1995 decisions and not merely reaffirm them. It would be unwise for the Committee to prejudge or pre-empt the outcomes of next years Conference. Those delegations had felt obliged, therefore, to abstain in the vote on that paragraph.
The representative of Jordan said he associated himself with the statement just made by the representative of New Zealand.
The Committee Secretary announced that the following countries had become co-sponsors of the nuclear disarmament draft: Germany, Canada, Norway, Italy, Finland, Luxembourg, Spain, Greece, Australia, Portugal and Austria.
By a vote of 130 in favour to 1 against (India), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Israel, Pakistan, Sierra Leone), the Committee then voted to retain the second preambular paragraph, by which the Assembly would bear in mind the recent nuclear tests, as well as the regional situations, which challenged international efforts to strengthen the global regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (Annex VIII).
By a vote of 134 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 3 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Pakistan)(Annex IX), the Committee voted to retain the first operative paragraph, which reaffirms the importance of achieving universality of the NPT, and calls upon States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it without delay and without conditions.
The Committee also voted to retain operative paragraph 9 by a vote of 103 in favour to 1 against (France), with 27 abstentions (Annex X).
By a vote of 128 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions, the Committee approved the draft as a whole on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/54/L.9/Rev.1) (Annex XI).
The representative of India, speaking in explanation of vote, said her country had an unwavering commitment to nuclear disarmament and the goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons globally, which was the main objective of the text. However, the instrument designed to deal with those weapons and promote global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, namely, the NPT, had proved to be ineffective. The goal could be achieved if the international community looked beyond the old framework of the NPT and moved towards the goal of equal and legitimate security for all through global nuclear disarmament. The current text had added new elements, including a moratorium on the production of fissile material, and on the IAEA protocol, which had been derived from the NPT framework.
Since the reference to nuclear tests in the second preambular paragraph was also extraneous, she said her delegation had called for separate votes on the second preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 1, on which she had cast negative votes. She had also disagreed with a number of recommendations of the Tokyo Forum report in the sixth preambular paragraph. Despite its disagreement with the inclusion of such elements, her delegation had maintained its
abstention in the vote on the draft as a whole, because it had agreed with the goal of the text. Unfortunately, a mention of the necessary political will and a call for negotiations were absent.
The representative of the United States said his delegation had supported the draft because if offered a more realistic vision of nuclear disarmament than the others that had been presented, in terms of accomplishments and future difficulties. His country was firmly committed to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, but that could only be accomplished through a step-by-step process. The agreed next step was a cut-off on fissionable material, on which no further delays should be tolerated. As for bilateral steps, he shared the co-sponsors optimism in looking beyond START III, but his focus for now was simply to get those talks under way and headed in the right direction.
He said that, although he had supported the draft, he had reservations on operative paragraph 9 and, thus, had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole. His Government agreed with the vital importance of the NPT, but it was inappropriate for the First Committee to detail the actions to be taken by the 2000 Review Conference or to specify its results. That had prejudged the Conference. The States parties would take a backward and forward look at the Review Conference, as agreed at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference. Just how that was done should be up to the Review Conference itself.
The representative of China said he agreed with the drafts main purpose of the ultimate destruction of nuclear weapons, but the draft had some important defects, as well. For instance, it failed to refer to the countries possessing the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenals, which had specific responsibilities in the area of nuclear disarmament. Nor had it called for the abandonment of nuclear doctrines characterized by the first-use of those weapons. Further, preventing the dissolution of the ABM Treaty and curbing the ABM system that undermined strategic global balance was a precondition for the promotion of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and the draft had failed to mention that, as well.
In addition, he said that many elements of the Tokyo Forum report were neither realistic nor reasonable. As such, his Government could not agree to the reference of the report in the draft. For all of those reasons, it had abstained in the vote. He hope that the relevant text could be improved next year, in order to make it possible for him to support it.
The representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation had traditionally supported the nuclear disarmament draft proposed by the Japanese delegation. He was impressed by the realistic approach of the text, which had differed from previous drafts by Japan. He could support the draft as a whole, under other circumstances, with the exception of operative paragraph 9, but he had abstained in the vote as a whole, not only for what it contained, but for what it had not. For example, the text had made no reference to the problem of retaining and strictly observing the ABM Treaty. There was a deep organic link between the inviolability of that Treaty and nuclear disarmament. The ABM agreement was part of the process of reducing strategic weapons and, of course, of nuclear weapons. The absence of a direct reference to the Treaty was the compelling reason for his abstention. The representative of Algeria said he had supported all efforts aimed at non- proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Nonetheless, the draft was a duplication of efforts, even a contradiction of the nuclear disarmament draft tabled by the delegation of Myanmar (document A/C.1/54/L.41), which he traditionally supported. Further, the title of the text did not exactly reflect its contents, as some of the elements were not in keeping with his view of nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, the language in operative paragraph 9 had digressed from the painstaking agreement reached at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. The 2000 Review Conference would decide about the elaboration of new, agreed objectives. Thus, his delegation had abstained in the vote on operative paragraph 9 and on the draft as a whole. He had supported the second preambular paragraph, referring to all nuclear tests.
The representative of Colombia said his delegation had abstained in the vote for same reasons put forth by the representative of New Zealand before the vote.
The representative of Syria said, if he had been present for the voting, he would have voted in favour of the first operative paragraph. He had always supported efforts to achieve complete nuclear disarmament, but he would like to record his reservations to the fifth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 4(a) concerning the CTBT. Regrettably, no reference had been made to the fact that Israel was the only country in the Middle East that had not adhered to the NPT and was preventing the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone there, which was closely linked to nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The representative of France said, regrettably, he had been unable to support the Japanese text. The wording in operative paragraph 9 had given rise to some serious reservations, even if the text as a whole had reflected his countrys position and commitment to non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. For one thing, it was not up to the General Assembly to decide the results of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, and the wording in the text was subject to the work of that Conference. Once again, it was up to the States parties to agree on the best ways and means to preserve and consolidate the NPT regime.
The representative of Oman said, if he had been present, he would not have participated in the vote on operative paragraph 9, due to the new language on the question of the Middle East in the decisions of the 1995 NPT Review Conference, which he had totally opposed.
The representative of Cuba said, once again, her delegation had abstained in the vote because the draft had not established a minimum basis for universal acceptance of nuclear disarmament. Despite its title, its contents had really focused on questions pertaining to non-proliferation, with special emphasis on the NPT, a discriminatory instrument. Partial approaches such as those did not create the necessary conditions to work towards the ultimate objective. Rather, those were a pretext on the part of some countries to promote their obsolete military doctrines. For those reasons, her delegation had opposed the draft.
The representative of Jordan said he had intended to vote in favour of the draft on missiles (document A/C.1/54/L.12/Rev.2). ANNEX I
Vote on Missiles
The draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/54/L.12/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 65 in favour to none against, with 58 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Côte dIvoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX I)
ANNEX II
Vote on Operative Paragraph 7 of New Agenda
Operative paragraph 7, concerning universal adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), of the draft resolution entitled Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/54/L.18), was approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 3 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: India, Israel, Pakistan.
Abstain: Bhutan, Cuba, Latvia.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX II)
ANNEX III
Vote on Operative Paragraph 18 of New Agenda
Operative paragraph 18, concerning assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT, of the draft resolution entitled Towards a nuclear-weapon- free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/54/L.18), was approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, 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, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 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, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstain: Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan, Republic of Korea.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, United Kingdom, United States, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX III)
ANNEX IV
Vote on Need for New Agenda
The draft resolution entitled Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/54/L.18), was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 13 against, with 37 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Hungary, India, Israel, Monaco, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Myanmar, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX IV)
ANNEX V
Vote on Preambular Paragraph 8 of Transparency in Armaments
Preambular paragraph 8, concerning the universality of the NPT, Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention, on the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/54/L.21/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, 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 Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: India, Israel.
Abstain: Canada, Cuba, Pakistan.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tonga, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX V)
ANNEX VI
Vote on Operative Paragraph 4(b) of Transparency in Armaments
Operative paragraph 4(b), concerning developing the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms to increase transparency in weapons of mass destruction, of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/54/L.21/Rev.1), was approved by a recorded vote of 77 in favour to 45 against, with 16 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Georgia, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bolivia, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX VI)
ANNEX VII
Vote on Transparency in Armaments
The draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/54/L.21/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 81 in favour to 45 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Georgia, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bolivia, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX VII)
ANNEX VIII
Vote on Preambular Paragraph 2 of Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
The second preambular paragraph, concerning recent nuclear tests, of the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.9/Rev.1), was approved by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Latvia, Libya, 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 Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav of 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, Viet Nam, Zambia.
Against: India.
Abstain: Bhutan, Israel, Pakistan, Sierra Leone.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tonga, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX VIII)
ANNEX IX
Vote on Operative Paragraph 1 of Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Operative paragraph 1, concerning the universality of the NPT, on the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.9/Rev.1), was approved by a recorded vote of 134 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Latvia, 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, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 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 Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia.
Against: India, Israel.
Abstain: Bhutan, Cuba, Pakistan.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tonga, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX IX)
ANNEX X
Vote on Operative Paragraph 9 on Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Operative paragraph 9, which concerns the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT, on the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.9/Rev.1), was approved by a recorded vote of 103 in favour to 1 against, with 27 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia.
Against: France.
Abstain: Algeria, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, United States, Uruguay.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, India, Israel, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tunisia, Uganda, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX X)
ANNEX XI
Vote on Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
The draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.9/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte dIvoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, 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, Viet Nam, Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstain: Algeria, Bhutan, China, Cuba, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russian Federation.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea- Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
* *** *