FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXTS CALLING FOR STRENGHTHENED ABM TREATY, ‘NEW AGENDA’ TO ACHIEVE NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE WORLD

Press Release
GA/DIS/3193

FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXTS CALLING FOR STRENGHTHENED ABM TREATY, ‘NEW AGENDA’ TO ACHIEVE NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE WORLD

The General Assembly, stressing the paramount importance of full and strict compliance by the parties with the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti- Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty), would call for continued efforts to strengthen it and preserve its integrity and validity, so that it remained a cornerstone in maintaining global strategic stability, according to one of two draft resolutions on nuclear weapons approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The draft resolution on the ABM Treaty was approved by a recorded vote of 78 in favour to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, India, Israel), with 65 abstentions. Also by its terms, the Assembly would urge all Member States to support efforts aimed at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. It would support further efforts by the international community, in the light of emerging developments, towards safeguarding the inviolability and integrity of the Treaty, which is in the strongest interest of the international community. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

Under the terms of a second nuclear-related draft resolution entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda”, the Assembly would call for: the further reduction of non- strategic nuclear weapons based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process; measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems; a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used; and, to facilitate the process of their total elimination, the engagement of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The text was approved by a vote of 146 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 8 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Monaco, Russian Federation, Uzbekistan). (See Annex IV).

Before approving the draft resolution as a whole, the Committee took separate votes, on the fifteenth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 16.

Preambular paragraph 15, which welcomes the Final Document of the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3193 27th Meeting (AM) 1 November 2000

Nuclear Weapons (NPT), was approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 1 abstention (Cuba). (See Annex II).

It approved operative paragraph 16 by a vote of 151 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan). That provision notes the agreement at the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to the non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty strengthen the nuclear non- proliferation regime. The Assembly would call upon the Preparatory Committee to make recommendations to the 2005 Review Conference on that issue. (See Annex III).

Introductions of revised draft resolutions were made by the representatives of Sweden and Mali.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Pakistan, Japan, France (on behalf of the European Union), Cuba, Brazil, Pakistan, India, United States, Nigeria, Syria, Azerbaijan, Chile, Philippines, Kyrgyzstan, Germany, Sweden, Nepal, Argentina, New Zealand, Peru, Ghana, Turkmenistan, China, Turkey, United Kingdom, Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to conclude action on draft resolutions.

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3193 27th Meeting (AM) 1 November 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 five revised drafts on nuclear weapons, one on conventional weapons, two on regional disarmament, including one amendment, and another on transparency in armaments.

The Committee will act on a total of 50 draft resolutions, which 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.

[Summary of the drafts to be acted upon this morning appear below in expected voting sequence.]

By the terms of a revised text on the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti- Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) (document A/C.1/55/L.2/Rev.1), the General Assembly, stressing the paramount importance of full and strict compliance with the 1972 Treaty by the parties, would call for continued efforts to strengthen it and to preserve its integrity and validity, so that it remains a cornerstone in maintaining global strategic stability and world peace, and in promoting further strategic nuclear arms reductions. The Assembly would also call for renewed efforts by each of the States parties to preserve and strengthen the Treaty through full and strict compliance.

Further, the Assembly would call upon the Treaty’s parties, in accordance with their obligations under the Treaty, to limit the deployment of anti- ballistic missile systems and refrain from the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems for the defence of the territory of their country and not to provide a base for such a defence, and not to transfer to other States or deploy outside their national territory anti-ballistic missile systems or their components limited by the Treaty.

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would urge all Member States to support efforts aimed at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. It would support further efforts by the international community, towards safeguarding the inviolability and integrity of the Treaty, which is in the strongest interest of the international community.

According to a new operative paragraph 7, the Assembly would welcome the decision taken by the United States on 1 September not to authorize deployment of a national missile defence at this time, and consider that it constitutes a positive step for the preservation of strategic stability and security.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Belarus, China and the Russian Federation.

The revised draft resolution entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda” (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1) would have the Assembly call for the following: the upholding of a moratorium on nuclear- weapon-test explosions pending the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); applying the principle of irreversibility to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures; for the early entry into force and full implementation of Strategic Arms Limitations and Reduction Treaty II (START II) and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible, while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions; and the completion and implementation of the trilateral Initiative between the United States, the Russian Federation and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would call for: steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promoted international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all; further efforts by them to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally; increased transparency with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to article VI of the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament.

The Assembly would also call for the further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process; concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems; a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used; and, to facilitate the process of their total elimination, the engagement, as soon as appropriate, of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.

In a further provision, the Assembly would call for arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under the IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such materials for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remained permanently outside military programmes. It would also call for regular reports, within the framework of the strengthened review process of the NPT, by all States parties on the implementation of article VI of the Treaty and paragraph 4(c) of the 1995 decision entitled “Principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament”, and recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996.

Further, it would call on all States not yet party to the NPT to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States, promptly and without condition, particularly those States that operated unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. It would also call upon those States to bring into force the required comprehensive safeguards agreements, together with additional protocols consistent with the Model Protocol Additional to the Agreement(s) between State(s) and the IAEA for the application of Safeguards for ensuring nuclear non-proliferation and to reverse, clearly and urgently, any policies to pursue any nuclear-weapon development or deployment, and to refrain from any action which could undermine regional and international peace and security and the efforts of the international community towards nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation.

It would call upon those States that had not yet done so to conclude full- scope safeguards agreements with the IAEA and to conclude additional protocols to their safeguards agreement on the basis of the Model Protocol approved by the Board of Governors of the Agency on 15 May 1997. The Assembly would agree to pursue the further development of the verification capabilities that would be required to assure compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Also, the Assembly would note that the Sixth NPT Review Conference agreed that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to the non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty strengthen the nuclear non- proliferation regime, and that it called upon its Preparatory Committee to make recommendations to the 2005 Review Conference on that issue.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Angola, Austria, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic; Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

[START II and III refers to the Strategic Arms Limitation and Reduction Treaties, by which the Russian Federation and the United States agreed to significantly reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Article VI of the NPT concerns the pursuit of nuclear disarmament negotiations.]

A revised draft text sponsored by Egypt on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.1) would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of Israel’s accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, in realizing the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East.

The Assembly would call upon that State to accede to the Treaty without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region, and as a step towards enhancing peace and security. It would ask the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its next session on the implementation of the present resolution. The revised text would add a new operative paragraph 1, by which the Assembly would welcome the conclusions on the Middle East of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

A revised draft text sponsored by Japan on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.39/Rev.1) would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of achieving the universality of the NPT and call upon States not party to the NPT to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States without delay and without conditions.

Under the text, the Assembly would reaffirm the importance for all States parties to the NPT to fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. It would stress the central importance of taking the practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement article VI of the NPT and paragraphs 3 and 4(c) of the 1995 decision on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non- Proliferation and Disarmament”.

[Paragraph 3 of the 1995 Decision on "Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament" refers to the achievement of nuclear disarmament and a reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon States to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. Paragraph 4(c) refers to the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of the elimination of those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.]

Under the draft, the practical steps towards implementation of those commitments include: early signature and ratification of the CTBT by all States, especially by those States whose ratification is required for its entry into force, with a view to its early entry into force before 2003, as well as a moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending its entry into force; and immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament, and their conclusion as early as possible before 2005, of a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty, banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The Assembly would further call upon States to redouble efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery, confirming and strengthening, if necessary, their policies not to transfer equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to the proliferation of those weapons.

A new operative paragraph 9 would replace the call for unilateral and cooperative efforts to prevent weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, from falling into the hands of non-State actors with a call upon all States to maintain the highest possible standards of security, safe custody, effective control and physical protection of all materials that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

According to a revised draft resolution sponsored by Canada on the 1998 decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish a committee to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty (document A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev. 1), the Assembly would recall that decision and urge the Conference to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty.

A revised draft resolution on assistance to States for curbing illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/55/L.11/Rev.2) would have the General Assembly encourage the setting up, in the countries in the Saharo-Sahelian subregion, of national commissions against the proliferation of small arms, and invite the international community to support as far as possible, the smooth functioning of the national commissions where they have been set up.

By further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would welcome the Declaration of a Moratorium on the Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms and Light Weapons in West Africa, adopted by the heads of State and government of the Economic Community of West African States at Abuja on 31 October 1998, and urge the international community to give its support to the implementation of the moratorium. It would also recommend the involvement of organizations and associations of civil society in efforts to combat the proliferation of small arms in the context of the national commissions and their participation in the implementation of the moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture of small arms.

It would express its full support for the appeal launched by the Assembly of heads of State and government of the Organization of African Unity at its thirty-fifth session for a coordinated African approach, under the auspices of the Organization of African Unity, to the problems posed by the illicit proliferation and circulation of and traffic in small arms, bearing in mind the experiences of the various regions. It would also expresses its full support for the convening of an international conference on the illicit arms trade in all its aspects no later than 2001.

The Assembly would also express its full support for the convening of an United Nations conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects in June/July 2001, in accordance with the General Assembly resolution 54/54 J of 15 December 1999.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Austria, Belgium, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Republic of Moldova and the United Kingdom.

A draft text on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.34) would have the Assembly affirm that global and regional approaches to disarmament complemented each other and should therefore be pursued simultaneously to promote regional and international peace and security. In that context, the Assembly would call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels.

In a related provision, the Assembly would stress that sustained efforts were needed, within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament and under the umbrella of the United Nations, to make progress on the entire range of disarmament issues. It would welcome the initiatives towards disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and security undertaken by some countries at the regional and subregional levels, and support and encourage efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels, in order to ease regional tensions and further disarmament and nuclear non- proliferation measures at those levels.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Egypt, Fiji, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia and Turkey.

A draft amendment submitted by Cameroon (document A/C.1/55/L.53) to the draft on regional disarmament would add new operative paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as follows, respectively:

“Requests all States to communicate to the Secretary-General information on disarmament efforts and initiatives as well as establishment of confidence- building measures carried out at regional and subregional levels”;

“Invites the Secretary-General to assist the subregional and regional organizations in the implementation and the strengthening of regional disarmament initiatives as well as in the establishment of confidence-building measures”;

“Requests the Secretary-General to report at its fifty-sixth session on the implementation of the present resolution”.

Under the terms of a revised draft resolution sponsored by Belarus on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.46/Rev.1) the Assembly would welcome and support the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties, and reaffirm the conviction that the establishment of internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned, enhances global regional peace and security, strengthens the nuclear non-proliferation regime and contributes towards realizing the objectives of nuclear disarmament.

The Assembly would also believe that the international community should continue to promote the establishment of new nuclear-weapon-free zones in accordance with the relevant guidelines of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, and in that spirit welcomed the efforts and proposals that have been advanced by the States in various regions of the world.

Take note of all the initiatives taken since 1995 by States in various regions of the world, including the initiative for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free space in Central and Eastern Europe. It would further request the Secretary-General to seek the views of all Member States on conditions under which non-nuclear-weapon States would be ready to participate in the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in their respective regions.

A draft text on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) would have the Assembly call upon Member States, with a view to achieving universal participation in the Register of Conventional Arms, to provide the Secretary- General, by 31 May, annually the requested data and information for the Register, including nil reports if appropriate. The Assembly would reaffirm its decision with a view to further the Register’s development, to keep the scope of and participation of the Register under review.

Towards that goal, the Assembly would recall its request to Member States to provide the Secretary-General with their views on the Register’s continuing operation and its further development, and on transparency measures related to weapons of mass destruction. It would also request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2003, on the basis of equitable geographical representation, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to a decision at its fifty-eight session.

The draft resolution is sponsored Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland and Israel.

Also, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation; Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Introduction of revised draft resolutions

HENRIK SALANDER (Sweden), speaking about the draft resolution on “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda” (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1), said that the Spanish translation of the draft contained some mistakes. The relevant passages should be congruent with corresponding passages in the NPT final document.

CHEICKNA KEITA (Mali) said that the revisions to the draft resolution on assistance to states for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms (document A/C.1/55/L.11/Rev.2) contributed to more clarity of the text. The revisions had added a footnote to the document as an annex. The revisions were primarily clarifications. His country paid tribute to those countries that had become co- sponsors of the draft resolution. He hoped that the text would be adopted by consensus.

General Statements

SHAFQAT ALI KHAN (Pakistan) said his country was committed to the early elimination of nuclear weapons and of nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, during the past five years, since the indefinite extension of the NPT, the momentum of international endeavors towards nuclear disarmament had visibly dissipated. Some nuclear-weapon States had stated their intent to retain nuclear weapons indefinitely, and the threat against non-nuclear-weapon States still existed. Moreover, the nuclear disarmament process was completely stalled and START II had not yet been implemented. The arms race persisted, and the rejection of the CTBT had not been reversed.

Under those circumstances, he said, there was no cause for the euphoria generated by the consensus reached at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. A step- by-step nuclear disarmament process was unlikely to be initiated in the near future, and the elimination of nuclear weapons had remained remote, if not utopian. Suspending reality in the context of nuclear weapons, including by the co-sponsors of draft resolutions on nuclear disarmament and the 2000 NPT Review Conference, could be costly. The NPT’s States parties could not seek to impose a provision on non-State parties.

Continuing, he said that in the eighteenth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1) and operative paragraph 3 of the text concerning a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55L.39/Rev.), a call was made for efforts to implement article VI of the NPT. That could only be achieved by States parties. Others could not be expected to implement the Treaty’s provisions.

SEIICHIRO NOBURU (Japan) said that the statement just made by the representative of Pakistan had referred to operative paragraph 3 of the draft text on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and to other draft resolutions. The Japanese delegation had introduced the draft on nuclear disarmament the day before yesterday. He understood that the delegation of Pakistan had made a general point concerning the legal obligation of States parties to a treaty, and as such, he took note of it as a statement of fact.

HUBERT FORQLUENOT DE LA FORTELLE (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Committee today would take a stand on a draft resolution dealing with negotiations banning the production of fissile material for nuclear arms (document A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.). The Union would take advantage of the opportunity to recall the importance it attached to such high priority negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament. Those negotiations, as well as effective implementation of the CTBT, must become another critical stage in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. That had already been recommended in the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and reaffirmed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. He said that the Union had deplored the fact that, until now, it had not been possible to reach consensus at the Conference to commence those fissile material cut-off negotiations. The Union called upon States parties to do everything possible to achieve that objective as quickly as possible. The consensus adoption of that important text would contribute to the effective launching of work in Geneva at the beginning of the 2001 session.

Action on drafts

Speaking before the vote, the representative of Cuba said that his country associated itself with those that had affirmed the validity and continued importance the ABM Treaty. Cuba had taken due note of the United States President’s decision to postpone a decision on the establishment of a national anti-missile defence system. That did not, however, mean that the idea had been abandoned. Development of such systems had continued to take place. The introduction of the draft resolution was, therefore, highly relevant. The draft was a text that did not give rise to confrontation, but limited itself to appeals. Cuba would vote in favour of the text and urged other delegations to firmly support it.

The representative of Brazil acknowledged the bilateral nature of the ABM Treaty, but said that the international community had a legitimate interest in the possibility of changes to that Treaty, given its role as a cornerstone of strategic stability. Brazil was concerned at any initiative that might impact negatively on nuclear disarmament, lead to new arms race or be inconsistent with the commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It reiterated the call on the parties to the ABM Treaty to preserve its integrity and validity, and to refrain from the implementation of measures that would undermine the Treaty’s purpose. While Brazil shared many of the substantive concerns contained in the draft resolution, it could not support the concept of Member States invoking for themselves the responsibility of safeguarding the inviolability and integrity of a bilateral Treaty. That responsibility belonged to the Treaty parties. Due to those considerations, Brazil would abstain in the vote.

The representative of Pakistan said that the end of the cold war had coincided with that appearance of a growing number of nuclear weapons and nuclear-weapon technologies. That situation was being aggravated by the political trend in the leading world power toward the deployment of a national missile defence system. Such a deployment could have a cascading effect on strategic stability. Deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems in certain regions could have a destabilizing effect, and that had serious security implications for Pakistan. His country shared the view that undermining the ABM Treaty would affect international security. It supported the call to limit the deployment of such systems.

Strategic stability should not be preserved at the cost of regional stability, he continued. The development and deployment of strategic missile defence systems was being portrayed as a response to the development of missile systems in developing countries. Those concerns about missile proliferation were being raised to justify the deployment of theatre missile defence systems. Pakistan shared the central objectives of the draft and would, therefore, vote in its favour.

The representative of India said that, as was the case last year, his country would vote in favour of the draft resolution. The issues it emphasized remained valid today. India stressed the importance of full implementation in good faith of all existing bilateral and multilateral treaties, including the ABM.

The representative of the United States said that a new version of the draft resolution would not enjoy the support of his country. The change contained in the draft only made the resolution worse. It did not take into account how the decision by the United States President to defer a decision on the deployment of a national missile defence system had changed the landscape. The ABM treaty had already been amended. The draft resolution continued to place the United States General Assembly in a position of taking sides in an ongoing discussion between the United Nations and the Russian Federation. Questions regarding the ABM Treaty were for the Treaty parties to resolve.

The representative of Nigeria said that although the ABM Treaty was a bilateral agreement, its implementation had implications for existing multilateral disarmament efforts. It was also the global cornerstone of strategic stability and had remained the basis for promoting further reductions of strategic nuclear weapons. It had, for 28 years, stood the test of time. He, therefore, hoped that those weighty factors would be paramount and that the States concerned –- the Russian Federation and the United States -- would try to resolve the differences in that bilateral arrangement.

The recent decision by the United States Government to postpone deployment of a national missile defence was welcome, he said. That positive decision had opened a window of opportunity to address the concern of the international community. The world community should seize that opportunity and urge those two countries to resume their dialogue, taking into account the need to preserve the ABM Treaty. Its future should not be in question. The way forward was a negotiated settlement of the ABM Treaty-related problems. His country shared some of the objectives contained in the present text (document A/C.1/55/ L.2/Rev.1). Nonetheless, the Committee should encourage the parties concerned to resolve the problems. Dialogue and cooperation, especially between the two major nuclear Powers, were critical for achieving agreement. Thus, his delegation would abstain in the vote on the text.

He said he was concerned about ballistic missiles, whose technology had been acquired by an increasing number of countries. Recent developments in missile defence had underscored the urgent need for multilaterally negotiated norms. A first step in that regard was the comprehensive study on missiles, which the Secretary-General had been asked to prepare with the assistance of governmental experts.

The representative of Syria said he supported the ABM Treaty, since it represented an important part of bilateral and multilateral disarmament agreements. Thus, the Treaty should enjoy full compliance and strict adherence. The language used in the seventh preambular paragraph and operative 5 was far removed from the main objective of the draft and detracted from the desired objective. The language in those two paragraphs encouraged the violation of the ABM Treaty and, therefore, contradicted, in practice, the draft’s objective. He had strong reservations about the content of those two paragraphs. Nonetheless, he would support the draft.

[The seventh preambular paragraph of the text recalls the widespread concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

Operative paragraph 5 urges all Member States to support efforts aimed at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.]

The representative of Azerbaijan said he would vote in favour of the draft, given the significance of the ABM Treaty, in particular, article 9 discouraging the deployment of national missile defence systems.

The representative of Chile said the ABM Treaty had been recognized as the cornerstone of strategic stability and the basis for future reductions of offensive nuclear arms. It, thus, had played a fundamental role in guaranteeing peace and international safety, and was clearly universal in nature. Any measure which might weaken its integrity and validity, therefore, would affect global security and stability. He was concerned about the danger of the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system and the search for military technology capable of being used in outer space. That, among other aspects, would lead to a world climate that would erode the possibility for disarmament.

He called on delegations to look clearly at the negative consequences that could be generated if the present situation endured. Its destabilizing effect could lead to a new arms race, thereby impeding disarmament and weakening arms control regimes. Nevertheless, the draft resolution had reflected the hope that the Treaty parties could reach an understanding with respect to maintaining and preserving the Treaty’s provisions.

The representative of the Philippines said he valued the importance of preserving the ABM Treaty, but he would abstain in the vote on the text. The ABM Treaty had served to secure the critical strategic balance that had kept the world intact during and after the cold war. The draft contained many elements reflecting other important concerns, and welcomed the decision by the United States Government on its national missile defence system. He agreed that the ABM Treaty was an issue of urgent concern for all, but it might not be time to become actively involved in the matter, as that could be settled among the Treaty’s States parties.

Continuing, he said that the General Assembly could not tell States parties not to amend a Treaty, when it contained a provision to do so. Keeping dialogue open on the issue could have welcome dividends. States thinking of proliferating weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems might think twice before expending resources that might prove futile. That was speculative, but there had been some positive and dramatic developments in his region. In strengthening efforts to address those issues, the issue of missile defence would hopefully become moot. He supported the AMB Treaty and the action taken today by his delegation should not detract from its consistent national position.

The representative of Kyrgyzstan said she was aware of the historic significance of the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone for ensuring international peace, security and strategic stability. She would reaffirm that, in the current international situation, the Treaty had retained its significance. She associated herself with the co-sponsors of the related draft.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/55/L.2/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 78 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 65 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Germany, speaking on behalf of a group of 29 States, said that the countries in the group abstained from the vote because they believed the draft resolution should have had the support of the parties to the Treaty. Regrettably, it had not been possible for the parties to reach agreement. The countries in the group attached great importance to the Treaty as a cornerstone of international security. Both the United States and the Russian Federation had reaffirmed their commitment to continue to strengthen the Treaty. He said the group welcomed the decision by the President of the United States to defer a decision on the deployment of a national missile defence system, as well as the agreement between the Presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation on a strategic stability agreement within framework of START III. The parties should continue with the bilateral process, including the early entry into force of START II. It was important to take practical steps to implement the outcome of the last NPT.

The representative of Sweden said that his country aligned itself with the statement made by the representative of Germany. His country did not share the overriding need for strategic stability contained in the draft resolution. The concept of strategic stability should not be the sole basis for disarmament in the post-cold war era.

The representative of Nepal said that his country voted in favour of the draft because it felt that global strategic stability needed to be preserved at any cost. The ABM Treaty, although negotiated bilaterally, set the ground for strategic balance.

The representative of Argentina said that her delegation placed a great deal of importance on the Treaty. It would like to see the world move towards complete and general disarmament. Argentina was concerned at the lack of progress in the countries possessing nuclear weapons, as represented by the lack of progress in the START II process. The international community had legitimate concerns about the ABM Treaty. Her Government wished to repeat the call on the two parties to deal bilaterally and move forward with a new agreement, in order to ensure full compliance with their obligations under the Treaty. Nevertheless, she had abstained from the vote, because the text would not lead to the right climate for the objective being sought.

The representative of New Zealand said that his country had abstained from the vote. New Zealand welcomed the decision of the United States President to defer a decision on the deployment of a national missile defence system, but noted that a strong possibility of deployment remained. Such deployment could impact negatively on nuclear disarmament efforts. The Prime Minister of New Zealand had voiced concern about national missile defence systems and had said that they could deter or unravel disarmament efforts. The solution lay, among others, in strengthening the NPT, which contained the obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Peru said his country had abstained from the vote. It hoped that the ABM Treaty could be strengthened because of the favourable impact it had for the world. He praised the decision by President of the United States to defer deployment of a national missile defence system. His country was against any actions that could have a negative impact on the ABM Treaty.

The representative of Ghana said that his country abstained in the vote, as it did last year, because it believed that the international community should be encouraging the parties to cooperate at the regional level. Such a process of dialogue, which was already underway, should be continued.

The representative of Turkmenistan said that his country would have voted in favour of the draft resolution if he had been present.

The Committee next turned to the draft resolution entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda” (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1).

The representative of Cuba said the text had a number of aspects that ran counter to his country’s position on nuclear disarmament. He had a number of reservations, including to the fifteenth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 16. With respect to those two paragraphs, he would abstain in the separate votes. With respect to the fifteenth preambular paragraph, which welcomed the final document of the Sixth Review Conference of the NPT, his position regarding the NPT and the outcome of the recent Review Conference was well known. Regarding security guarantees, the subject of operative paragraph 16 of the text, he would reiterate that the security guarantees for non-nuclear- weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear arms should be universal, unconditional and non-discriminatory. It was unacceptable that such guarantees should be granted only to States parties to the NPT.

He said that his country, as a non-nuclear-weapon State that had put all of its nuclear installations under IAEA safeguards, had a right to call for security guarantees from other States, even in light of its independence from the NPT. Despite his reservations to those and several other paragraphs, he would support the text as a whole. That decision was the outcome of a very careful analysis, which took into account a range of aspects, specifically that the draft, despite certain inconsistencies and limitations, could contribute towards the promotion of nuclear disarmament, the priority objective. The fact that the text put forth the idea of a world free from nuclear armaments and laid out a certain number of clear steps to be taken, had meant it had merit, which he acknowledged and encouraged. He hoped, all of those good intentions would become reality.

The representative of Pakistan said that this year’s resolution on a new agenda had incorporated numerous elements of the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. His statement to the Committee on 23 October had spelled out his position on the NPT Review Conference. One of the preambular paragraphs talked about the question of status. His Government had never asked for any special status, but his country should be able to continue deter nuclear or other aggression. Thus, the paragraph might have the opposite effect of what it might be trying to achieve, as it implied that certain States did have a certain status -- to possess nuclear weapons. He strongly opposed the unrealistic demands contained in operative paragraph 13 of the text, and had asked the co- sponsors to make changes. Unfortunately, those suggestions had not been taken on board by the co-sponsors. In fact, the revised draft had become even more unacceptable to his delegation. Thus, he was constrained to vote against it.

The representative of India said that the final document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament had remained the only consensus document on disarmament adopted by the international community as a whole. That final document contained a programme of action which remained only partially implemented. Any future agenda should take into account its implementation, as a starting point. On the most import element -- nuclear disarmament -- the international community had achieved little. Was there a need for a new agenda at all, when the most important element in the existing agenda had remained valid and unfulfilled? he asked. He understood the origin of the draft, but it not only went far beyond the parameters of the Joint Declaration, it had been totally changed and cast this year in the NPT framework, which was as old as 1967. It also included extraneous elements and formulations that had been adopted in other forums.

He said he rejected the fourth and fifth preambular paragraphs, and operative paragraphs 13, 14, and 17. Those were not only irrelevant to the draft resolution, but also fictional and completely divorced from the reality on the ground. India no longer had the nuclear weapon “option”. That had been exercised. India was a nuclear-weapon State. That was not a status that it sought, or one for others to grant. That reality could not be denied. The reference in operative paragraph 17 of the text to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia called into question the fundamental guiding principles for the establishment of such zones, which were again endorsed by consensus in the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines last year. Given the current realities, the proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia was no more valid than in South-East Asia or North America, for example.

Continuing, he said that the nuclear doctrine of the only remaining transcontinental multilateral alliance, had reaffirmed its first-use policy of nuclear weapons. Efforts were under way in certain countries to define and modernize those weapons well into the new century. Even specific references, such as de-alerting nuclear warheads, had been deleted from the text in an evident attempt to appease nuclear-weapon State parties to the NPT. That could further erode the international climate. Instead of emphasizing the gravity of such actions, the resolution had recast most paragraphs to make them more palatable to nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT. The resolution had attempted to revise the sagging fortunes of a Treaty that had disappointed the majority of State parties, in order to get the self-anointed five nuclear-weapon States to accept concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The text was silent, however, on sources of proliferation, which the NPT had failed to stem.

All such efforts would be limited by the discriminatory nature of the NPT, he went on. Any new agenda could not succeed in the old framework of the NPT. The sponsors appeared to be reverting to the old agenda in the old framework, which was bound to fail. A durable system of international security was needed that was based on the principles of equal and legitimate security for all. The resolution should have included the proposals of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), given that a number of co-sponsors were also NAM members. He would also have preferred designating the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction as a crime against humanity, in line with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. He shared the objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, but remained unconvinced about the utility of an exercise bound by the flawed and discriminatory approaches of the NPT. He would, therefore, cast a negative vote on the resolution as a whole.

The representative of France urged that the corrigendum to the draft on the new agenda issued by the Secretariat should be respected.

The Committee Chairman announced that there would be separate recorded votes on the fifteenth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 16 of the draft on a new agenda.

The Committee Secretary announced that Iran and Kuwait had joined as co- sponsors.

The fifteenth preambular paragraph reads as follows: “Welcoming the final document of the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”.

The paragraph was approved by a vote of 151 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 1 against (Cuba) (See Annex II).

Operative paragraph 16 reads as follows: “Notes that the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapon agreed that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear- weapon States to the non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and that it called upon its Preparatory Committee to make recommendations to the 2005 Review Conference on this issue”.

Operative paragraph 16 was approved by a vote of 151 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan) (See Annex III).

The draft resolution as a whole on a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1) was approved by a vote of 146 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 8 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Monaco, Russian Federation, Uzbekistan) (See Annex IV).

The representative of China said that his country voted in favour of the draft resolution because the text drew extensively from the outcome of the last NPT Review Conference. The resolution could, however, be improved upon. The ABM Treaty was the cornerstone for preventing nuclear proliferation and the draft should have been taken a more explicit stand on that question. Also, countries possessing the most advanced nuclear arsenals should be able to take the lead in disarmament. In addition, transparency measures in the nuclear disarmament process should be linked to the security of the country concerned. The draft should have called upon nuclear-weapon States to undertake not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and also not to use such weapons against non- nuclear-weapon States or against nuclear-weapon-free zones.

The representative of the United States said that his country was pleased that, this year, the sponsors presented a draft that his country could support. They had wisely followed the decisions of the NPT review conferences. His country recognized that nuclear disarmament was a process that called for pragmatic steps and was not a political process. The nuclear disarmament path had included negotiations of additional treaties and agreements reflecting national and international security concerns. That was the path that could best bring about a nuclear-weapon-free world. The draft resolution included a misleading paragraph. The support of the United States for the draft reflected the country’s overall support for the outcome of the NPT review process, and not support for the misleading paragraph.

The representative of Turkey said that as a State party to the NPT, his country wanted all countries to work together to achieve the goal of nuclear disarmament. This year, it voted in favour of the draft resolution, as it reflected the successful outcome of the last NPT Review Conference.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that his country voted in favour of the draft because it was committed to the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The package of measures contained in the draft had been endorsed in the outcome of the last NPT review conference. The United Kingdom had implemented many of those measures. Nuclear weapons now played a reduced role in the United Kingdom’s national security and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The immediate priority was for further action. The achievement of the global elimination of nuclear weapons required that the nuclear-weapon States do more. His country would continue to work with other nuclear-weapon States towards that goal. Nuclear disarmament could, however, not be carried out in a security vacuum. Further progress was needed in other areas such as conventional weapons. The United Kingdom attached particular importance to robust international verification arrangements.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that a great deal of work had gone into the draft resolution. His country could, however, not ignore the fact that it misplaced the emphasis in the NPT Review Conference. The adoption of the draft could create the wrong impression that only the implementation of certain aspects of the outcome of the NPT Review Conference were important. The major objective of the NPT parties was the full implementation of all decisions of the Review Conference.

The representative of France said that his country had voted against the resolution in the past. Some of the difficulties with the text still remained. France had taken note of the concern of the sponsors to reflect the consensus regarding the outcome of the NPT Review Conference, but the text did not fully satisfy the need for fidelity to that document. There was no ambiguity concerning France’s commitment to eliminating nuclear weapons. The resolution did not reflect the required balance. While his country was fully determined to fulfil its obligations, it had abstained in the vote.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said that his country had abstained from the vote last year. His country supported efforts towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. That was why it put more emphasis on practical and incremental approaches to disarmament. The language in the present text was more balanced, reflecting the final document of the NPT Review Conference.

(annexes follow)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3193 27th Meeting (AM) 1 November 2000

ANNEX I

Vote on ABM Treaty

The draft resolution on preservation of and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) (document A/C.1/55/L.2/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 78 in favour to 3 against, with 65 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Uganda, Ukraine, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Liberia, Malawi, Maldives, Mauritania, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX I)ANNEX II

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 15 of New Agenda

Preambular paragraph 15 of the draft resolution entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda” (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 3 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, 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, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, 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, 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 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, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, 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: India, Israel, Pakistan.

Abstain: Cuba.

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

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Operative Paragraph 16 of New Agenda

Operative paragraph 16 of the draft resolution on “towards a nuclear- weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda” (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 0 against with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, 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, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, 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, 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 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, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, 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: Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan.

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

(END OF ANNEX III) ANNEX IV

Vote on New Agenda

The draft resolution “towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need of a new agenda” (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 3 against with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, 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, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, 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, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India, Israel, Pakistan.

Abstain: Bhutan, France, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Monaco, Russian Federation, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Belize, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, 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, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

* *** *