In progress at UNHQ

GA/DIS/3192

PROMOTION OF NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE STATUS OF SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE CALLED FOR IN DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

31 October 2000


Press Release
GA/DIS/3192


PROMOTION OF NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE STATUS OF SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE CALLED FOR IN DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

20001031

Four Other Approved Texts Concern Missiles, Small Arms Conference, Biological Weapons Convention Protocol, South-Eastern Europe Stability

The General Assembly would call upon signatories to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties, in order to pursue the goals envisaged in such treaties and to promote the nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies, according to one of five draft texts approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The draft resolution, which also called upon all States to support the nuclear disarmament process and work for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, was approved by a vote of 146 in favour to 4 against (France, Monaco, United States, United Kingdom), with 6 abstentions (Andorra, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, India, Russian Federation, Spain). (For details of the vote, see Annex IV.)

Before voting on the draft, the Committee first approved the last three words of operative paragraph 3 of the draft, “and South Asia”, by a vote of 134 in favour to 1 against (India), with 10 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Cyprus, Mauritius, Myanmar, United Kingdom, United States, Pakistan). (See Annex II.)

Also, by a vote of 138 in favour to 1 against (India), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, Cyprus, Mauritius, Myanmar, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United Kingdom, Unites States, Pakistan), the Committee approved operative paragraph 3 of the draft as a whole. That paragraph welcomes the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among states of the region concerned and calls upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia. (See Annex III.)

In other action, the Committee approved a draft resolution on missiles, by which the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to further seek the views of Member States on the issue of missiles in all its aspects and to report to it at its fifty-sixth session. It would also request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a panel of governmental experts to be established in 2001, to

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3192 26th Meeting (AM) 31 October 2000

prepare a report for the Assembly’s consideration at its next session. The text was approved by a vote of 90 in favour to none against, with 60 abstentions. (See Annex I.)

By a vote of 150 in favour with none against, with no abstentions, the Committee also approved a draft on the maintenance of international security -- good-neighbourliness, stability and development of South-Eastern Europe. By its terms, the Assembly would urge the strengthening of relations among the States of South-Eastern Europe on the basis of respect for international law and agreements in accordance with the principle of good-neighbourliness and mutual respect. It would also urge all States to undertake effective measures against illicit traffic and circulation of small arms, and to help programmes aimed at the safe destruction of surplus stocks of small arms and light weapons (Annex V).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention). By its terms, the Assembly would welcome the progress achieved so far in negotiating a verification protocol to strengthen the Convention. It would reaffirm the decision of the Fourth Review Conference, which urged the conclusion of those negotiations before the commencement of the Fifth Review Conference -- to be held at Geneva from 19 November to 7 December.

A draft decision on small arms, adopted without a vote, would have the Assembly decide to convene the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects from 9 to 20 July 2001 in New York. It would also decide to hold the third session of the Preparatory Committee from 19 to 30 March 2001 in New York.

Introductions of revised drafts were made by the representatives of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Iran.

Statements were also made by the representatives of China, France, Egypt, Australia, Pakistan, United States, Japan, Republic of Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Spain, Philippines, United Kingdom, India, Nepal, Belarus and Cuba.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 1 November, to continue action on all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions.

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3192 26th Meeting (AM) 31 October 2000

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue the third stage of its work, namely, action on disarmament and security-related draft resolutions. It had before it two drafts on nuclear weapons, one on other weapons of mass destruction, and another on international security. It also had before it a draft decision on small arms.

According to its programme of work, the Committee will act on a total of 50 draft resolutions during its current session. The drafts have been grouped into 10 clusters. They include 18 nuclear weapons-related drafts, three on other weapons of mass destruction, one on the outer space (disarmament aspects), five on conventional weapons, and three on regional disarmament and security. Also included are two drafts on confidence-building measures, including transparency in armaments, 11 on disarmament machinery, four on other disarmament measures, one on related matters of disarmament and international security, and two on international security.

By the terms of a draft resolution, sponsored by Iran, on Missiles (document A/C.1/55/L.1/Rev.1), the General Assembly would request the Secretary- General to seek the views of Member States on the issue of missiles in all its aspects and to report to the Assembly at its fifty-sixth session. It would also request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a panel of governmental experts to be established in 2001 on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, to prepare a report for the Assembly’s consideration at its next session on the issue of missiles in all its aspects.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/55/L.19/Rev.1), the Assembly would call upon all States to support the process of disarmament and to work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons. It would also call upon the States parties and signatories to the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba, in order to pursue the common goals envisaged in those treaties and to promote the nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies.

By the further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would welcome the vigorous efforts being made among the parties and signatories to promote their common objective, and consider that an international conference of States parties and signatories might be held to support the common goals envisaged in those treaties. It would encourage competent authorities of the treaties to provide assistance to the States parties and signatories to facilitate the accomplishment of those goals.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

A draft decision on small arms (document A/C.1/55/L.28/Rev.1) would have the Assembly decide to convene the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects from 9 to 20 July 2001 in New York. The Assembly would decide to hold the third session of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference from 19 to 30 March 2001 in New York. It would also decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-sixth session.

The draft decision is sponsored by Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, El Salvador, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Netherlands, Niger, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Turkey, United Kingdom and Zambia.

According to a text on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (document A/C.1/55/L.42), the Assembly would welcome the progress achieved so far in negotiating a verification protocol to strengthen the Convention and reaffirm the decision of the Fourth Review Conference, which urged the conclusion of the negotiations by the Ad Hoc Group as soon as possible before the commencement of the Fifth Review Conference -- to be held at Geneva from 19 November to 7 December -- and submission of its report, which should be adopted by consensus, to the States parties to be considered at a special Conference.

In that context, the Assembly would call upon all States parties to accelerate the negotiations, and to redouble their efforts within the Ad Hoc Group to formulate the efficient, cost-effective and practical regime and seek early resolution of the outstanding issues through renewed flexibility in order to complete the protocol, in accordance with the decision of the Fourth Review Conference. The Assembly would note with satisfaction the increase in the number of States parties to the Convention and reaffirm the call on all signatory States to ratify the Convention without delay. It would also call upon those States that had not yet signed the Convention to become parties to it at an early date, thus contributing to universal adherence.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.

According to a text on the maintenance of international security -- good- neighbourliness, stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/C.1/55/L.47/Rev.1), the Assembly would urge the strengthening of relations among the States of South-Eastern Europe on the basis of respect for international law and agreements, in accordance with the principle of good- neighbourliness and mutual respect. The Assembly would also urge all States to undertake effective measures against illicit traffic and circulation of small arms, to help programmes aimed at the safe destruction of surplus stocks of small arms and light weapons.

In a related provision, the Assembly would stress the importance of closer cooperation among States in such areas as crime prevention, combating illicit trade of people, drug trafficking and money- laundering. It would call upon all participants in the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, and all concerned international organizations, to support the efforts of the South-Eastern European States to overcome the negative effects of the Kosovo crisis and other recent crises to enable them to pursue sustainable development and their integration into the European structures.

The Assembly would also call upon all States, the relevant international organizations and competent organs of the United Nations to respect the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty, and the inviolability of international borders to continue to take measures, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, to eliminate threats to international peace and security and to help to prevent conflicts which could lead to the violent disintegration of States.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.

Introduction of Revised Drafts

NASTE CALOVSKI (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) introduced the revised draft text on the maintenance of international security -- good- neighbourliness, stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/C.1/55/L.47/Rev.1). Three changes had been made:

In preambular paragraph 9, a reference to the declaration adopted in Scopje had been added, so that the paragraph now read:

“Noting also the importance of the Charter of good neighbourly relations, stability, security and cooperation in South-Eastern Europe signed by the participating States of South-Eastern European Cooperation Process (SEECP) in Bucharest on 12 February 2000 and the Joint Statement of the heads of State and government adopted in Scopje on 25 October 2000.”

He said that the word “outcome” had been deleted in the tenth preambular paragraph, which now read:

“Noting further the Conference on War-Affected Children held in Winnipeg on 17 September 2000.”

In operative paragraph 7, he went on, the word “bilateral” had been deleted. That paragraph now read:

“Stresses the importance of regional efforts aimed at preventing conflicts endangering the maintenance of international peace and security, and notes with satisfaction, in this regard, the role of the Multinational Peace Force for South- Eastern Europe.”

He said that today’s adoption of the draft text by the Committee carried a special significance. The third preambular paragraph welcomed the democratic changes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the positive impact on developments in South-Eastern Europe. It was the first time that the General Assembly was formally doing so. The fundamental democratic changes had resulted in the submission of an application for admission to the United Nations, an event which would take place today and tomorrow. The region of South-Eastern Europe was entering a new period of integration with the whole of Europe, leaving behind the period of conflicts, insecurity and under-development.

The adoption of the present draft resolution would strengthen that process, he said. In that new period for the region, the disarmament and arms control efforts and those aimed at eliminating the illegal trafficking in small arms and light weapons would be more successful than in the past. The adoption of the draft meant that the principle of good neighbourliness and mutual respect would dominate relations and cooperation among all countries of the region.

MOHAMMAD REZA ALBORZI (Iran) introduced the revised draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/55/L.1/Rev.1). Since the submission of the text, his delegation had conducted extensive consultations on the content of the resolution. Various proposals had been made, which were intended to bring new elements to, or further elaborate on, some of the concepts in the draft. He highly commended those efforts and acknowledged the importance and relevance of those suggestions. He was aware of the complex nature of the issue of missiles, which was, to a certain extent, difficult to compare to any other field in disarmament and arms regulations, due to its sensitivity in the context of the national security of States. Thus, presentation of the draft should be viewed as a means to build upon the minimum required common denominator among the differing approaches.

Last year, when he had initiated a basis to commence multilateral intergovernmental discussions on missiles, he had anticipated that it would not be easy, he said. He soon further realized that it was much more complex than what he had originally thought. That had highlighted the reason why that significant issue had remained dormant and outside the realm of the United Nations, where it truly belonged. Extensive consultations with various countries and groups of countries, both at the United Nations and at the capitals, had revealed the “cold fact” that several States of significant position in regional and international peace and security, in particular, those with access to technology and those who either maintained or envisaged a system of missiles in the broader military and security strategies, had positions solidly entrenched with little room for flexibility.

He said that the arguments raised, in most cases, were convincingly strong and difficult to disregard. His delegation strove for a basic minimum in the text out of those deeply opposing views. Some countries would have preferred to have their views included. Some had strongly believed that the principle of non- discrimination should be further highlighted and existing deployments taken into account. Still others wished to view the resolution and the expert panel as a multilateral measure to address the issue. The prevailing view was that neither should be overemphasized at the cost of the other; both should be maintained as positions of principle through which a reasonable approach could emerge. He was not fully satisfied with the result. Meanwhile, he was pleased to have been able to encompass the concerns, at least generally.

The revised text contained two new elements that were the product of consults with Member States as well as the Secretariat, he said. The first was for the Secretariat to further seek the views of Member States. That could pave the way for more States to submit their views to the United Nations. It was also suggested that the expert group submit its report in two years, instead of one, in order to enable the Secretariat to better organize the panel’s sessions. Those two issues had been duly addressed in the revised text. The draft had provided a general framework for opening a multilateral dialogue on the issue. He hoped that the establishment of the panel of governmental experts would receive the highest support from States and the Secretary-General. He was confident that the interested countries with decisive views would have an outstanding opportunity to express them to the expert group.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee first took up the draft resolution on Missiles (document A/C.1/55/L.1/Rev.1).

Speaking in explanation before the vote, the representative of China said that, in recent years, the question of missiles had caused increasing difficulties and required action by the international community. That issue could not be addressed by unilateral measures. Discriminatory and cartel style measures could not solve the problem. China rejected the practice of power politics and abuse of power. A universal non-discriminatory mechanism must be established to address all issues of missiles in a comprehensive manner. The draft was a constructive effort in that direction. China was in support of the establishment of a governmental panel of experts on missiles as proposed in the draft.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said that the Union recognized fully the importance of the question of the non-proliferation of missiles. While understanding the general approach of the draft resolution, it found that it was too imprecise on the essential subject of the proliferation of missiles and the technologies linked to missiles. That was why the Union decided to abstain in the vote on the draft resolution. Nevertheless, the Union underlined the necessity to intensify international efforts to prevent the spread of missiles and missile technologies. Among others, the code of conduct adopted in Helsinki would have a role to play in that regard.

The representative of Egypt said that the question of missiles needed to be considered in a comprehensive manner within the framework of weapons of mass destruction. Any dialogue on that issue should be totally non-discriminatory. He hoped that the draft resolution would be a positive first step in such a dialogue. The contents of the daft were positive and were in addition to international disarmament efforts. His country would vote in favour of the draft because of its concern to advance disarmament efforts, particularly those aimed at eliminating weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

The representative of Australia said that the issue of missiles warranted the efforts of the international community. His country welcomed the efforts of Iran in presenting the draft resolution. His country had been active in pursuing the issue of missiles. It, however, had some difficulties with the draft resolution and would abstain in the vote. The draft resolution contained some important omissions. Australia found it difficult to support a text that dealt with missiles in all their aspects. Also, if an expert group was to be created, such a group should concentrate its work on ballistic missiles, particularly long- range missiles.

The representative of Pakistan said that the draft resolution represented a very important initiative, which his country had strongly supported from the outset. He wished that the text reflected, with greater precision and detail, some of the factual problems and issues surrounding the question of missiles. It should have acknowledged that the central security problem posed by missiles arose from the deployment of thousands of missiles equipped with nuclear warheads by certain countries. States which reserved the right to deploy thousands of missiles were now seeking to prevent developing countries from developing missiles for legitimate self-defence. The international community must resolutely resist that discriminatory trend. The need to promote the peaceful uses of missile technology was also not adequately covered in the draft resolution. Pakistan hoped the resolution would allow the evolution of greater equity in the field of missiles.

The draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/55/L.1/Rev.1) was approved by a vote of 90 in favour to none against, with 60 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

The representative of the United States, speaking in explanation of vote, said he had understood the sentiment of the draft on missiles, but it was unnecessary and counterproductive to bring that discussion into the United Nations. Accordingly, he had abstained in the vote. The problems of missile proliferation were well known, and ongoing efforts already existed to limit it. The limited responses to the Secretary-General had been insufficient to establish an expert group, which right now could do more harm than good.

His country took the danger of missile proliferation very seriously and had actively sought to eliminate it, he continued. The most effective efforts in that regard had been on a regional basis. The United States would continue to address the problem posed by missile proliferation. It encouraged other concerned States to cooperate in that common cause, and not act in ways that would undermine it or divert attention from it.

The representative of Japan said he had abstained in the vote, since the text had made no explicit reference either to concern about missile proliferation as delivery vehicles for weapons of mass destruction, or to the recognition of efforts being made in which his country had participated. He remained committed to playing an active role in preventing and curbing their proliferation.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said he had abstained in the vote. The proliferation of missiles as a delivery means for weapons of mass destruction had seriously undermined international peace and security. In particular, the tests conducted in some regions in recent years had shown that the issue of ballistic missile proliferation must be urgently addressed. Given the inherently complex nature of the problem, a step-by-step approach would be most practical. The international community had undertaken various efforts at the bilateral and multilateral levels to resolve the issue. He encouraged the development of such efforts. The draft had failed to properly address those points.

The Committee next turned to the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/55/L.19/Rev.1).

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba had created nuclear- weapon-free zones that covered the southern hemisphere and had contributed, to a great extent, to a nuclear-weapon-free world. His country highly valued those achievements and appreciated the efforts made by the countries of the regions concerned. Indeed, it was imperative to ensure, in practical terms, and further consolidate, the legal status of those zones by fully meeting the desire of the countries in those regions. There was no reason, in view of the commitment made by the nuclear-weapon States concerned, that those requests could not be met. Hopefully, those zones would be expanded to other regions.

The representative of Spain said she intended to abstain in the vote on the draft concerning a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere. Her country fully supported the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in line with arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. The draft resolution covering the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas was important in connection with the establishment of such zones. Her delegation had supported the draft in the past, in 1998 and 1999. This year, notwithstanding the new operative paragraph 6, on which she had reservations, she would abstain in the vote.

She noted that the previous resolutions on the subject, as well as the preambular portion of the current text, had contained a reference to the possibility of entering into other types of joint arrangements among the signatory States of the nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. The objective was to foster cooperation among such areas. She had no objection to that concept, but the text had introduced a new concept that was qualitatively different from other approaches and entailed a departure from the consensus elements recently reached with regard to nuclear-weapon-free zones. The groundwork laid in relevant documents on the establishment of such zones was adequate and did not warrant the convening an international conference. She was, therefore, unable to endorse such a proposal and unable to support the text.

The representative of the Philippines said he would vote in favour of the draft because it contained elements worthy of his delegation’s support. He had co-sponsored the text at the fifty-first session. Subsequently, however, the drafts had included language referring to maritime rights. That language on freedom of passage could only refer to the passage of ships carrying nuclear weapons on the high seas, which, in the long run, could make the realization of the text’s objective even more difficult. Just as States should not transfer weapons of mass destruction across the high seas, they should not transfer nuclear weapons either. As the International Court of Justice had stated, the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was illegal, everywhere. The Philippines, which was composed of much maritime space, had not allowed the presence of nuclear weapons on its land or maritime space.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking also on behalf of the United Sates and France, said that they would vote “no” on the draft resolution. Last year, they had worked hard with the sponsors in an ultimately futile attempt to allay the concerns about the sponsors seeming desire to restrict the maritime rights of free passage on the high seas. Unfortunately, the sponsors refused to include the applicable passages of the Law of the Sea Convention in the draft resolution, as well as an explicit assurance that the fundamental freedom of the seas was to be unaffected by their intentions. Concern had increased this year after a minister from one of the sponsor countries made it clear that his intention was to limit freedom on the high seas in ways that fundamentally undermined the norms set by the Law of the Sea Convention.

He said the three countries were also concerned by the language in this year’s draft resolution referring to an international conference of States parties and signatories to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. It was not clear what that conference was meant to achieve. The United Nations had agreed on general guidelines for nuclear-weapon-free zones at the United Nations Disarmament Commission of 1999. He did not see how the proposed conference could contribute anything further.

The Secretary of the Committee announced that Ghana had joined as a sponsor of the draft resolution.

The Committee then voted on the last three words of operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution, “and South Asia”.

The words “and South Asia” were approved by a vote of 134 in favour to 1 against (India), with 10 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Israel, Cyprus, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Myanmar, United Kingdom, United States, Pakistan). (For details of the vote, see Annex II.)

The Committee then voted on the operative paragraph 3 as a whole. The paragraph reads:

“Welcomes the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zones treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States of the region concerned and calls upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia.”

Operative paragraph 3 was approved by a vote of 138 in favour to 1 against (India), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, Cyprus, Mauritius, Myanmar, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United Kingdom, United States, Pakistan). (See Annex III.)

The draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas as a whole (document A/C.1/55/L.19/Rev.1) was approved by a vote of 146 in favour to 4 against (France, Monaco, United States, United Kingdom), with 6 abstentions (Andorra, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, India, Russian Federation, Spain. (See Annex IV.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of India, explaining his country’s vote operative on paragraph 3, said that the proposal was contrary to the principles regarding the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at by the States concerned. There was, thus, a contradiction in the paragraph, which was more apparent when seen against current realities. The sponsors should have explored ways of relating nuclear- weapon-free zones in the southern hemisphere to the new realities in South Asia. Given the distortions in the paragraph, India had voted against it and abstained from the other votes on the draft resolution.

The representative of China said that his country was always in favour of efforts to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones through arrangements freely arrived at by the concerned States. China was willing to sign the revised protocol to the nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty for South Asia. The establishment of such zones was of important significance to nuclear disarmament. The scope of nuclear- weapon-free zones should not include continental shelves or areas where disputes existed. Participants in such zones should not take any pretext, including military alliances, to avoid the fulfilment of relevant obligations. The draft that had just been approved referred to the applicable principles regarding the rights of passage, including the Law of the Sea. China understood that the draft resolution did not add any additional obligations. That was why it voted in favour of the draft resolution.

The representative of Nepal said his country voted in favour of the draft resolution because it was convinced that the establishment of such zones contributed to nuclear disarmament. Such zones could be helpful in any part of the world. That was why Nepal welcomed adoption of last three words in paragraph 3.

The representative of France, on behalf of the European Union, said that the Union fully supported the draft on the Biological Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/55/L.42), submitted by the delegation of Hungary. The Union attached great importance to strengthening the Convention and realized that objective depended on the successful conclusion of negotiations within the special group of parties to the Convention on a legally binding protocol establishing a verification and control regime. The Union was continuing to advance the successful outcome of those negotiations so that a protocol could be adopted before the Convention’s Fifth Review Conference, to be held at Geneva from 19 November to 7 December 2001.

She said that the Union urged all States parties to join those efforts. The member States of the Union were actively participating in the negotiations of the special group, and had reaffirmed their commitment by establishing a joint position regarding progress to be made to conclude the protocol. The measures contained in that joint position had been designed to provide a balance between verification needs and respect for the economic and commercial interests of States parties. The establishment of a verification and control regime to the 1972 Convention could provide significant guarantees. Its conclusion would be a landmark disarmament step.

The Committee Secretary announced that Cuba and Iran had joined the draft resolution as co-sponsors.

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the resolution on the Biological Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/55/L.42).

Members then turned to the cluster of drafts on conventional weapons.

The representative of the Philippines said he had placed the highest importance on the forthcoming small arms Conference and was pleased to know where and when it would be held. He appreciated the efforts of the Japanese delegation in offering to host the Conference, and to the many delegations that had cooperated in arriving at that decision. The very generous offer of the Government of Switzerland to host the Conference should also be recognized. He hoped other procedural issues relating to the Conference could be resolved in a process that would not affect the two Preparatory Committees, which should be free to deal with substantive issues.

The representative of France, speaking again on behalf of the European Union, said the Union had also welcomed the offer made by the Swiss Government to hold the 2001 small arms Conference in Geneva. In particular, it welcomed that Government’s efforts to combat the scourge of small arms and their destabilizing accumulation. He keenly regretted that Swiss authorities, a few days ago, had been obliged to withdraw their offer, given the inability to reach agreement with the United Nations Secretariat concerning the supplementary costs. The Union had remained convinced that, for the future, Geneva should remain a place at which the United Nations exerted its competence in the area of disarmament.

He hoped the procedural issues would be settled as quickly as possible and by consensus, in order to continue, in the best possible spirit, preparations for the 2001 Conference. An international plan of action commensurate with the significance of the problem was now at stake. The Conference was an important meeting for the international community, in particular, for all those suffering from the small arms scourge. The meeting in January of the Preparatory Committee was an opportunity to meet those expectations.

The Committee Secretary announced that the following countries had joined as co-sponsors of the draft on small arms: Mozambique, Austria, Senegal, Guinea, Brazil and Uzbekistan.

The Committee then approved the draft decision on small arms (document A/C.1/55/L.28/Rev.1) without a vote.

Turning to the draft resolution on the maintenance of international security -- good-neighbourliness, stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/C.1/55/L.47/Rev.1), the Committee Secretary announced that Turkey and Iceland had joined as co-sponsors.

By a recorded vote of 150 in favour to none against, with no abstentions, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the maintenance of international security -- good-neighbourliness, stability and development of South-Eastern Europe. (See Annex V.)

The representative of Belarus, speaking in explanation of vote, said the draft was unquestionably an important example of regional cooperation. What he questioned, however, was whether the First Committee was the forum in which to consider the subject. The plenary meetings of the General Assembly, however, took decisions on items within the framework of durable peace and democratic governance. The text just approved should be considered at a plenary meeting of the Assembly. Unquestionably, it contained a number of provisions that touched on questions of disarmament, but that was not its primary objective. Thus, it was in

keeping with the subjects considered in plenary meetings of the Assembly and not of the Committee.

In addition, he said, a number of provisions were a source of concern for his delegation. He had reported on those to the draft’s co-sponsors well before its official issuance. Nevertheless, even the revision had not incorporated any of his views. He, therefore, had retained certain reservations on the draft text and could not associate himself with its consensus adoption. Nevertheless, taking into account the constructive and cooperative spirit of the session, and in light of the generally positive thrust of the draft, he had not pressed for a recorded vote.

The representative of Cuba said he had cast a favourable vote on the text, mindful of its relevance to efforts being made to promote good-neighbourliness, stability and development in South-Eastern Europe. He had particularly supported the principles to which reference was made in operative paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. That had not meant an automatic endorsement of each element and approach embodied in the text. In fact, certain issues had been raised in the text which required broader consideration than that which could be applied in the First Committee. For instance, some issues bore on the work done by the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Kosovo. In the future, the co- sponsors could examine those issues in the plenary of the Assembly, thereby allowing each element to be considered from a far broader perspective.

[Operative paragraph 4 concerns the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty of all States, and the inviolability of international borders. Operative paragraph 5 stresses resolution of disputes through peaceful means. The operative paragraph 6 refers to the strengthening of relations among the States of South-Eastern Europe on the basis of international law and agreements in accordance with the principle of good-neighbourliness and mutual respect.]

The representative of Botswana said his delegation had co-sponsored the draft on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/55/L.19/Rev.1) and had intended to vote in favour of the last three words of operative paragraph 3 and the operative paragraph as a whole.

(annexes follow)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3192 26th Meeting (AM) 31 October 2000

ANNEX I

Vote on Missiles

The draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/55/L.1/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to none against, with 60 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

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

(END OF ANNEX I)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3192 26th Meeting (AM) 31 October 2000

ANNEX II

Vote on “And South Asia” in Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The words “and South Asia” in operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/55/L.19/Rev.1) were approved by a recorded vote of 134 in favour to 1 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, 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, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bhutan, Cuba, Cyprus, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Belize, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gambia, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Spain, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX II)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3192 26th Meeting (AM) 31 October 2000

ANNEX III

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3 in Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

Operative paragraph 3, as a whole, in the draft resolution on the nuclear- weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/55/L.19/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 1 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, 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, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, 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, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bhutan, Cyprus, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Belize, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gambia, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Spain, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX III)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3192 26th Meeting (AM) 31 October 2000

ANNEX IV

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/55/L.19/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 4 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, 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, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, 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, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, 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, 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, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: France, Monaco, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Federated States of Micronesia, India, Israel, Russian Federation, Spain.

Absent: Afghanistan, Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, 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 IV)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3192 26th Meeting (AM) 31 October 2000

ANNEX V

Vote on South-Eastern Europe

The draft resolution on the maintenance of international security –- good- neighbourliness, stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/C.1/55/L.47/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to none against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, 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, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, 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, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: None.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media. Not an official record.