FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES SIX DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES, INCLUDING TEXT ON COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY

Press Release
GA/DIS/3191

FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES SIX DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES, INCLUDING TEXT ON COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) this afternoon continued taking action on its disarmament and security-related draft resolutions, approving six texts by recorded vote on nuclear disarmament, the International Court of Justice advisory opinion, a convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, nuclear doctrines, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ben Treaty (CTBT) and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

According to a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament, approved by a vote of 99 in favour to 39 against, with 17 abstentions, the General Assembly would urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems. It would urge them, as an interim measure, to immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to take other concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear-weapon systems. (See Annex V for details of the vote).

Before taking a decision on the draft as a whole, a separate recorded vote was taken on operative paragraph 9, which welcomed the positive outcome of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States in the final document to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The provision was approved by a vote of 139 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 16 abstentions. (See Annex IV).

The Committee also approved a draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. By its terms, the Assembly would underline the Court’s unanimous conclusion that there exists an obligation to pursue and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. States would be called upon to immediately fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 2001 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 27 against, with 21 abstentions. (See Annex VII).

Before approving the draft text as a whole, a separate recorded vote was taken on operative paragraph 1, underlining the Court’s unanimous conclusion concerning the obligation to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

disarmament. The operative paragraph was approved by a vote of 150 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with 1 abstention (United Kingdom). (See Annex VI).

The Assembly would reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, according to another nuclear weapons text. The Assembly would ask the Conference to report to it on the results of those negotiations. The draft text was approved by a vote of 101 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions. (See Annex I).

The Assembly, considering that the hair-trigger alert of nuclear weapons carried unacceptable risks, would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons, under a text on reducing nuclear danger. The draft was approved by a vote of 102 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions. (See Annex II).

A draft resolution on the CTBT would have the Assembly stress the importance and urgency of signing and ratifying the CTBT, without delay and without conditions to achieve its early entry into force, under the terms of another nuclear weapons text. States would be urged to maintain their moratoriums on nuclear-weapon tests, pending the Treaty’s operation, and be called upon to sign and ratify the CTBT as soon as possible and to refrain from acts that would defeat its object and purpose in the meantime. The draft was approved by a vote of 149 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius, Syria, and United Republic of Tanzania). (See Annex III).

The draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance and urgency of preventing such an arms race and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective. It would call upon all States, particularly those with major space capabilities, to actively contribute to the peaceful use of outer space and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to existing treaties. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Israel, United States). (See Annex VIII).

Also today, it was announced that the Committee intended to complete its work two days early, on 1 November, rather than 3 November.

Representatives of the following countries introduced revised draft resolutions: Sweden, Japan, Canada, Brazil and the Russian Federation.

Statements on the drafts were made by the representatives of France, on behalf of the European Union, Algeria, Pakistan, Japan, United States, Syria, Israel, Chile, India, China, New Zealand, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Luxembourg.

First Committee - 1b - Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 31 October, to continue taking action on all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions.

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue the third stage of its work, namely action on disarmament and security-related draft resolutions. It had before it five drafts on nuclear weapons and one on the prevention of an outer space arms race.

A draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/55/L.25) would have the General Assembly reaffirm the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective, in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

The Assembly would call upon all States, particularly those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of peaceful use of outer space and prevention of an arms race in outer space. It would call on them to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to existing treaties, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation.

By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would emphasize the necessity of further measures, with appropriate and effective provisions for verification, to prevent an arms race in outer space. It would reiterate that the Conference on Disarmament, as the single multilateral disarmament-negotiating forum, has the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects.

The draft is sponsored by Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Kuwait, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and the Sudan.

According to a draft resolution on a convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.30), the Assembly, determined to achieve an international convention banning the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons, leading to their ultimate destruction, would reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. The Assembly would request the Conference to report to it on the results of those negotiations.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

According to a draft text on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/55/L.32/Rev.1), the Assembly, considering that the hair-trigger alert of nuclear weapons carried unacceptable risks, would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons. The Assembly would request the five nuclear-weapon States to undertake measures towards that goal. It would call upon Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.

The Assembly would request the Secretary-General, within existing resources, to continue to seek inputs from the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters on information with regard to specific measures that would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear war, including the proposal contained in the Declaration adopted at the United Nations Millennium Summit, for convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers, and to report thereon to the Assembly at its next session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bhutan, Costa Rica, Fiji, India, Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia, Sudan, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Under the terms of a draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test- Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/55/L.37) the General Assembly would stress the importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions, to achieve the early entry into force of the CTBT.

The Assembly would also urge States to maintain their moratoria on nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, pending entry into force of the Treaty, and call upon all States that had not signed the Treaty to sign and ratify it as soon as possible and to refrain from acts that would defeat its object and purpose in the meanwhile. It would also call upon States that had signed but not yet ratified the Treaty, in particular those whose ratification is needed for its entry into force, to accelerate their ratification processes.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Zambia.

A draft text on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.41)would have the Assembly urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems. The Assembly would also urge them, as an interim measure, to immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to take other concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear weapon systems. It would also urge those States to commence plurilateral negotiations among themselves at an appropriate stage on further deep reductions of nuclear weapons as an effective nuclear disarmament measure.

In a related provision, the Assembly would urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate commencement of negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, with a view to conclusion within five years. The Assembly would also call for the conclusion of an international legal instrument or instruments on adequate security assurances to non-nuclear- weapon States.

By a further term of the text, the Assembly would call upon those States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument on the joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. It would call on all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non- use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.

In a related provision, the Assembly would call for the early entry into force and strict observance of the CTBT. It 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 those weapons.

It would reiterate its call upon the Conference to establish, on a priority basis, an ad hoc committee to deal with nuclear disarmament early in 2001 and to commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament leading to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. It would call for the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects at an early date to identify and deal with concrete measures of nuclear disarmament.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Panama, Philippines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.48) the General Assembly would underline the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue, in good faith and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. It would call upon all States to immediately fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 2001 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear-weapon convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

By further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would request all States to inform the Secretary-General of efforts and measures they take on the implementation of the resolution and nuclear disarmament.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Philippines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Introduction of revised draft resolutions

HENRIK SALANDER (Sweden) introduced a revision to the draft "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda" (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1), saying that the co-sponsors had engaged in consultations with interested delegations to take into account their views. The changes being introduced were in the preambular paragraphs. They did not change the substantive thrust of the draft resolution.

There were nine co-sponsoring delegations that had not been reflected in the draft resolution, he said. In addition, the footnote to the third to last preambular paragraph had also not been reflected in the draft. That footnote should read “NPT/Conf/2000/28 VI, Article 15, Colon 6.” The co-sponsors of the draft resolution hoped for the widest possible support for the draft resolution.

SEIICHIRO NOBORU (Japan) introduced revisions to the draft resolution on total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.39/Rev.1) which is co- sponsored by his country and Australia. He said that the co-sponsors had conducted intensive consolations with interested delegations. The draft was revised to reflect the intensive consultation with the interested delegations”

He also introduced revisions to the draft decision on small arms (document A/C.1/55/L.28/Rev.1), saying that awareness of the problem posed by small arms had grown remarkably and that many initiatives had been taken to tackle those problems. His country welcomed such developments and was pleased that the United Nations was actively engaged in that issue. This year, Japan decided to introduce a short and procedural decision on small arms, rather than a draft resolution so as to help the outcome of the international conference on small arms. The draft decision dealt with the venue and date of the conference. An early decision on the date and venue of the conference was urgently required. The draft was the result of consultations since the last meeting of the First Committee.

CHRISTOPHER WESTDAL (Canada) presented the revised draft resolution on the decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty (document A/C.1/55/ L.49/Rev.1). The title of the draft resolution had more than 70 words. He had tried to pronounce it, but it sounded like some destination in Wales –- “quite beyond me”. The text was derived from the General Assembly resolution of 4 December 1998, which was adopted without a vote by the Committee and the Assembly. It had been adapted to take into account the outcome of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and of consultations.

He said that the text had had a long and difficult history, and complex negotiations lay ahead. It was not the text’s purpose to review that history or prejudge the structure or result of those negotiations. It was strictly procedural, anchored firmly in the realities and expectations of the international community. Attempts to amend the text would raise substantive issues better reserved for the Conference on Disarmament. The text expressed the determination that, together, it might be possible to conclude a multilateral and internationally verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty. Such an instrument was fundamental to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. He hoped the draft would be adopted without an amendment and without a vote.

LEONARDO FERNANDES (Brazil) introduced the revision to the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/55/L.19/Rev.1), which was the result of consultations in which some delegations had expressed the view that the reference to an international conference of States parties and signatories to the nuclear-weapon-free zones in operative paragraph 6 should be more clearly specified. The revision, therefore, contained modifications in line with those concerns. The new operative paragraph 6 now read as follows: “Welcomes the vigorous efforts being made among States parties and signatories to those treaties in order to promote their common objectives, and considers that an international conference of States parties and signatories to the nuclear-weapon-free zones might be held to support the common goals envisaged in those treaties”. The co-sponsors hoped that the common goals envisaged in the nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties would continue to receive overwhelming support.

[The treaties refer to the nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties of Tlatelolco, Raotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba).

ANATOLI ANTONOV (Russian Federation) introduced the revised draft resolution on the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty). The revised text had one change: the inclusion of a new operative paragraph 7, which welcomed the decision taken by the United States on 1 September not to authorize, at this time, deployment of a national missile defence, which was considered a positive step for the preservation of strategic stability and security. That revision was made following the results of discussions of the question in the Committee, and after consultations with regional groups and interested countries. The revision was purely factual in nature and its inclusion, once again, emphasized that the text was not confrontational and not directed against any State, whatsoever. Member States had one choice: to vote for the resolution and, in so doing, preserve the basis for strengthening strategic stability. That was not the prerogative of selected countries and could only be ensured through the collective efforts of the international community. The draft had broad support, and there would be no further additions to the text. It was ready for a decision on 1 November.

Action on Texts

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries, said that those countries fully supported the draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/55/L.37). It was important and urgent to allow the Treaty to enter into force as soon as possible. For the Union, that was a priority. All States that had not yet done so, particularly those on the list of 44 whose signatures were necessary for the Treaty to enter into force, should do so. All member States of the European Union, including those on the list of 44, had signed and ratified the Treaty. The European Union had spared no effort to have that Treaty enter into force as soon as possible. In Vienna last year, countries of the European Union, which had signed and ratified the Treaty, committed themselves to work to have it signed by all and to enable it to enter into force.

The representative of Algeria, supporting the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.41), commended the outcome of the last NPT Review Conference and the commitment made by the nuclear-weapon States to proceed to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. That commitment was in conformity with article VI of the Treaty. Algeria hoped that those commitments would be translated into action without delay. An additional reason for supporting the draft resolution was the appeal it made for the holding without delay of an international conference on nuclear disarmament.

Speaking before the vote, the representative of Pakistan said he supported the draft on a convention banning the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.30). He had consistently sought to promote full respect for the United Nations Charter, especially the central principle relating to the non-use or threat of use of force in international relations. He construed the call for the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons as being designed to uphold that central principle. He hoped, that principle, as well as adherence to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, would be reflected in all prohibitions. Last week, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan had stated that the use of nuclear weapons was inconceivable.

The Committee Secretary announced that Burkina Faso, Mauritius, Namibia, and Nepal had joined as co-sponsors of the text.

The draft resolution on a nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/55/L.30) was approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions. (See Annex 1 for details of the vote).

Speaking on explanation of vote, after the vote, the representative of Japan said he had abstained. Those weapons should never again be used and their elimination should be achieved at the earliest possible date. In order to realize the total elimination of nuclear weapons, the only way possible in today’s international reality was to make steady, step-by-step progress in nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. His own draft on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.39/Rev.1) had more immediacy and practicality than had been envisaged in the present text.

The representative of the United States said she voted “no” on the draft. Notwithstanding its commitment to nuclear disarmament, that was not the type of convention that the United States would ever negotiate, approve or sign. It was simply not a practical approach to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The considerable progress achieved to date had been won by a realistic, step-by- step process that had embraced bilateral, unilateral and multilateral measures. In light of the successful outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the draft’s relevance had further decreased.

Turning to the draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/55/L.32/Rev.1), the Committee Secretary announced that Cuba and Namibia had joined as co-sponsors.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger by a recorded vote of 102 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions (See Annex II).

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/55/L.37).

The representative of Pakistan, speaking on the draft resolution on the CTBT, said that his country considered that the CTBT was a good Treaty and that it would be in its interest to sign it. With regard to the draft’s operative paragraph 3 on the maintenance of a moratorium on testing, his country had not been the first to carry out such tests. It would also not be the first to resume them. Pakistan had declared a moratorium on testing and would maintain that moratorium until the entry into force of the CTBT. It would, however, review that decision in the event of extraordinary development in its region. Pakistan had voted in favour of the CTBT in the past, but following its test, some important countries had imposed sanctions on it. His country resented those sanctions and wanted them removed. It would be willing to sign that Treaty if the coercive atmosphere was removed.

The draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/55/L.37) was approved by a vote of 149 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius, Syria, and the United Republic of Tanzania). (See Annex III)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Syria, said that his delegation abstained from the vote because his country had consistently stressed that a treaty of such significance should not disregard the legitimate concerns of the non-nuclear-weapon States, which constituted the majority of countries in the world. Those countries had not been assured of security from nuclear attack. The provisions of the Treaty did not show the commitment of the nuclear-weapons States to phase out their nuclear weapons within a specific time. It also did not explicitly prohibit the use of nuclear weapons, nor did it prohibit the qualitative development of such weapons or new ones. It was bizarre that the Treaty provided for signing States to take measures against non-signing States. That was against the right of States to sign treaties.

The representative of Israel said his government had signed the CTBT and had played an active role on the negotiation of the Treaty in Geneva. It also played a major part in developing the CTBT verification regime. His country voted in favour of the draft resolution because of the importance it attached to CTBT, notwithstanding reservations to some of the wording.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.41).

The representative of Chile, speaking before the vote on nuclear disarmament, said that his country rejected policies that kept up the threat of nuclear weapons. Chile was part of a nuclear-weapon-free zone, having signed the Southern Common Market (MERCUSOR) pact on nuclear disarmament. His country found it incomprehensible that the international community could not achieve substantial progress in the nuclear disarmament arena.

The representative of Pakistan said that his country had previously stated its position on the measures contained in the draft resolution. For those reasons, it would abstain from the vote on the draft resolution.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.41).

Before acting on the nuclear disarmament text as a whole, the Committee took a decision on operative paragraph 9, which welcomed the positive outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference and the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear- weapon-States in the final document to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

Operative paragraph 9 of the nuclear disarmament draft (document A/C.1/55/L.41) was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 16 abstentions (See Annex IV).

The draft resolution as a whole on nuclear disarmament was approved by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 39 against, with 17 abstentions. (See Annex V).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Japan said he had abstained in the vote on the draft. It was his fervent desire and firm belief that the use of nuclear weapons should not be repeated and that continuous efforts should be made towards eliminating those weapons. His delegation last year had recognized some improvements in the content of the text and this year it was aware of further improvements. The text now contained a direct reference to the NPT as a cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. He also appreciated the welcoming of the final outcome of the 2000 NPT Conference.

Nevertheless, he said that the text had not commanded his Government’s full support, as it still contained the elements of an agreed time frame for nuclear disarmament in the fifth preambular paragraph. In addition, the idea of a nuclear disarmament conference was unclear in operative paragraph 16 and seemed to be an overlap in light of the recently concluded NPT Review Conference and the ongoing review process. The possibility of convening an international conference to find ways of reducing nuclear danger, and the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, were still under discussion in the United Nations.

The representative of India said his country, in view of its long-standing and unwavering commitment to nuclear disarmament and the elimination of those weapons globally, had supported the text in the past, but was disappointed at the turn it had taken. This year, it had diluted a number of traditional, long- held positions of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 21 countries on nuclear disarmament, which he had fully supported. His views regarding the NPT were well known. Thus, he had cast a negative vote on operative paragraph 9 and had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole.

The representative of China said he voted in favour of the draft, because he supported its principles and purposes. On the question of nuclear disarmament, he shared much common ground with the Non-Aligned Movement. For example, all of those countries had favoured the complete prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons and had opposed nuclear deterrence policies. They had also supported the early commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. In order to attain the objective, at an early date, of the complete destruction of nuclear weapons, apart from the measures mentioned in the text, note should also be taken that the ABM Treaty was the cornerstone for maintaining global strategic balance and stability, promoting nuclear disarmament, and preventing nuclear proliferation.

In that respect, he continued, it was essential to call upon all Member States to observe the ABM Treaty in a comprehensive and strict fashion. Also, the country with the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal should take the lead in reducing its nuclear weapons on a large scale. That would improve the international security environment and create conditions for other nuclear- weapon States to join the nuclear disarmament process. Other measures, such as nuclear transparency, should be based on the larger international environment of peace, security, stability and confidence and should be linked with the nuclear disarmament process and not compromise the safety and security of the countries concerned.

The representative of New Zealand said that the draft had continued to evolve in a positive direction. The endorsement of the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice were particularly welcome elements, but a few aspects of the text still required clarification. Moreover, he did not regard himself bound to the preambular section, as there had been a clear call for nuclear disarmament in the final document of the NPT Review. Also, he had co-sponsored the draft on the need for a new agenda, which urged the Conference on Disarmament to immediately set up a body to commence nuclear disarmament negotiations. Regrettably, it had so far been unable to do so. Talks should also resume on banning fissile material for nuclear weapons. While he could support the draft this year, references to the Conference were too prescriptive, given the current realities.

The committee then took up the draft resolution on the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.48)

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that the international community had an obligation to work towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The advisory opinion of the ICJ was on the side of that goal. His country hoped that the draft resolution would serve to bring to about the early commencement of multilateral negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Chile said that his country attached great importance to international law and, as such, to the advisory opinion of the ICJ. The advisory opinion was a solid theoretical basis for nuclear disarmament. As a result of their devastating effect, nuclear weapons could cause incalculable damage. The advisory opinion formed an unquestionable reference source regarding threats which could have unpredictable effects on mankind.

The Secretary of the Committee announced that the following countries had joined as co-sponsors of the draft resolution: Bolivia, Egypt, Grenada, Honduras, Jamaica, Pakistan, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Surinam, Uruguay, Vanuatu and Niger.

The Committee first voted on operative paragraph one of the draft resolution, which reads as follows: “Underlines once again, the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

The paragraph was approved by a vote of 150 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with 1 abstention (United Kingdom). (For details of the vote, see Annex VI)

The Committee then approved the draft resolution (document A/C.1/55/L.48) as a whole by a vote of 109 in favour to 27 against, with 21 abstentions. (See Annex VII)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Japan said that his country abstained from the vote on the draft resolution. His country believed that nuclear weapons should never be used again because of their immense power. It, however, believed concrete measures needed to be taken in a steady, step-by-step approach to achieve nuclear disarmament. Practical measures should be pursued with intensity before jumping to the kind of actions proposed in the draft resolution.

The representative Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the Benelux countries, welcomed the support for the nuclear disarmament. He said that those countries supported operative paragraph one of the draft resolution, but could not support as a draft as a whole because they believed that nuclear disarmament could only be implemented as a gradual process by the parties to the NPT. Efforts needed to be focused on the implementation of those specific measures.

The representative of the United States said his delegation voted “no” both on the draft resolution and on its operative paragraph one. His country’s position on the draft resolution had not changed. It opposed it because it believed that the step-by-step process was yielding significant results. Such step-by-step process remained the only realistic approach in that complex field. The ICJ opinion was simply advisory and not binding.

The committee then took up the draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/55/L.25).

The Secretary of the Committee announced that Malaysia and Togo had joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

The draft resolution on the prevention of arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/55/L.25) was approved by a vote of 154 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (United States, Israel) (See Annex VIII).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries, said that those countries had voted in favour of the draft resolution. The issue of preventing an arms race in outer space had been discussed at length. The European Union was prepared to support the establishment of subsidiary body under the Conference on Disarmament on that subject. Negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory treaty to ban the production of fissile materials was also a priority for the Union.

(annexes follow)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

ANNEX I

Vote on Convention Prohibiting Use of Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on a Convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons (document A/55/L.30) was approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 42 against with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In Favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, 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, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, the United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX I)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

ANNEX II

Vote on Reducing Nuclear Danger

The draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/55/L.32/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 102 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In Favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, 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, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, China, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX II)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

ANNEX III

Vote on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

The draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/55/L.37) was approved by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In Favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, 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, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, 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, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, 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, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

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

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX III)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

ANNEX IV

Vote on Operative Paragraph 9 of Nuclear Disarmament

Operative paragraph 9 of the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament, (document A/C.1/55/L.41) was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour of 2 against, with 16 abstentions, as follows:

In Favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India, Israel.

Abstain: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Monaco, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

ANNEX V

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament

The draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.41) was approved by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 39 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, 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, 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 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sweden, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Honduras, Kiribati, Libya, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX V)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

ANNEX VI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 1 of Advisory Opinion of ICJ

Operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/55/L.48) was approved by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 4 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, 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, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States.

Abstain: United Kingdom.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

ANNEX VII

Vote on Advisory Opinion of ICJ

The draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.48) was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 27 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3191 25th Meeting (PM) 30 October 2000

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Prevention of Outer Space Arms Race

The draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/55/L.25) was approved by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, 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, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, 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, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Israel, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

* *** *