DRAFT RESOLUTION ON ‘PATH TO TOTAL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS’ APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE, AS IT CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION

Press Release
GA/DIS/3194

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON ‘PATH TO TOTAL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS’ APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE, AS IT CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION

Also Approves Texts on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation, Fissile Material, Arms Register, Regional Disarmament, Small Arms

The General Assembly would stress the central importance of taking practical steps to implement the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including early signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) by all States, as well as a moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other explosions pending its entry into force, according to a draft resolution entitled "a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons", which was one of six texts approved this afternoon by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), as it concluded its work for the current session.

A further provision of the text, approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 1 against (India), with 12 abstentions, would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of achieving the universality of the Treaty and call upon States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States without delay and without conditions. (For details of the vote, see Annex II).

Prior to acting on the text, the Committee approved operative paragraph 8, which calls upon all States to redouble their 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. The provision was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Pakistan), with 11 abstentions. (For details, see Annex I).

Under a draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the General Assembly would reaffirm the importance of Israel’s accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, in order to realize the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East. The Assembly would also call upon that State to accede to the NPT without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3194 28th Meeting (PM) 1 November 2000

possession of nuclear weapons and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. The draft was approved by a vote of 139 in favour to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States) with 7 abstentions (Australia, Canada, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago) (see Annex IX).

Prior to voting on the draft resolution as a whole, the Committee took a separate decision on preambular paragraph 6, which recognizes with satisfaction that, in the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the Conference undertakes to make determined efforts towards the achievement of the goal of universality of the Treaty, and calls upon those remaining States not party to it to accede to it, thereby accepting an internationally legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities. The paragraph was approved by a vote of 138 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Tonga) (see Annex VIII).

A third nuclear weapons draft, approved without a vote, would have the Assembly recall the decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish a committee to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty, and urge the Conference to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty.

A draft text on transparency in armaments 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. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions. (See Annex VII.)

Before taking a decision on the draft as a whole, four separate votes were taken on the fifth preambular paragraph, and operative paragraphs 2, 5(b) and 7. The fifth preambular paragraph, approved by a vote of 134 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Syria), with 12 abstentions, would have the Assembly welcome the note by the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development. (Annex III)

Operative paragraph 2, by which the Assembly would endorse the report of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development and the recommendations contained therein, was approved by a vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria), with 11 abstentions (see Annex IV).

By the terms of operative paragraph 5(b), the Assembly would request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2003, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, taking into account work of the Conference on Disarmament, with the views expressed by Member States and the reports of the

First Committee - 1b - Press Release GA/DIS/3194 28th Meeting (PM) 1 November 2000

Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to a decision at its fifty-eighth session. The Committee approved that provision by a vote of 135 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria) with 12 abstentions. (See Annex V.)

Operative paragraph 7, approved by a vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 16 abstentions, would have the Assembly invite the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments. (See Annex VI.)

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a text on regional disarmament by which the Assembly would 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.

A revised draft resolution on assistance to States for curbing illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them, also approved without a vote, would have the 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.

A revised draft text entitled regional disarmament and non-proliferation was withdrawn by its sponsor, the representative of Belarus. He said the text, for which he had sought the support of the entire international community for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, had become an issue of political prejudice for some countries of his region, which, only yesterday, had voted in favour of drafts seeking to consolidate or create such zones.

The representative of Cameroon withdrew the amendment to that regional disarmament text.

In his concluding remarks, the Committee Chairman, Mya Than (Myanmar), said that this year the Committee had addressed a balanced set of issues. Nuclear and space issues, as well as small arms and other conventional arms control, such as anti-personnel mines and transparency in disarmament, were extensively covered. The most urgent message that rang out from this year’s deliberations and resolutions was the imperative to overcome, in 2001, the current impasse in the Conference on Disarmament and to immediately start negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty.

The Committee Secretary, Lin Kuo-Chung, also made a closing statement, in recognition of his approaching retirement in March 2001

Expressions of appreciation for the Committee’s work were made by representatives of the following regional groups: Mauritania on behalf of the Group of African States; South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement;

First Committee - 1c - Press Release GA/DIS/3194 28th Meeting (PM) 1 November 2000

Slovenia on behalf of the Eastern European States; Germany on behalf of the Western European and Other States; France on behalf of the European Union; Kyrgyzstan on behalf of the Asian States; Brazil on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States; and Libya on behalf of the Arab States.

An introduction of the revised draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was made by the representative of Egypt.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Syria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, United Kingdom, France (on behalf of the European Union), Iran, Russian Federation, Algeria, Israel, Japan, Libya (on behalf of the Arab States), Mexico, Oman, Cuba, Myanmar, Iraq, United States, India, and Norway.

The Committee will meet again at a date and time to be announced.

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3194 28th Meeting (PM) 1 November 2000

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to conclude the third stage of its work, namely action on disarmament and security-related draft resolutions. It had before it three revised drafts on nuclear weapons, one on conventional weapons, two on regional disarmament, including one amendment, and another on transparency in armaments.

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

A revised draft text sponsored by Japan on a path to 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”.

[Article VI concerns the obligations of all parties to the Treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

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 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty 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 (ECOWAS) 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 (OAU), 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 express 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 a 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 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 welcomes the efforts and proposals that have been advanced by the States in various regions of the world.

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.

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 Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (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 adds a new operative paragraph 1, by which the Assembly would welcome the conclusions on the Middle East of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

Action on Texts

The Committee first took up the draft resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.39/Rev.1).

The representative of France said that the French translation of document A/C.1/55/L.31 was still not satisfactory.

Speaking before the vote, the representative of Egypt said that operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution stressed the need to strengthen policies relating to the control of exports and technologies of delivery in a way that consolidated the discriminatory treatment of nuclear non-proliferation. It did not take into account the comprehensive nature of the outcome of the NPT Review Conference. The issue of nuclear non-proliferation should be based on a non- discriminatory approach and must address the question in all its aspects, without being exclusive in any way. His country would, therefore, vote against the paragraph.

The representative of Syria said that his delegation had drawn the attention of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution to the fact that the Arabic translation of operative paragraph 8 of the text did not reflect the corresponding English text. That translation had not been rendered accurately. The text should be accurate, so as to reflect the full meaning contained in original text.

The representative of Indonesia said that operative paragraph 8 was important and reflected important issues and developments. His country had long supported collective international efforts towards nuclear disarmament. It underscored the importance of the need for all States parties to honour their NPT obligations. That goal could not be met through discriminatory approaches or regimes of denial. Indonesia would, therefore, abstain in the vote on that paragraph but will vote in favour of the draft resolution as a whole.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on operative paragraph 8,which reads: “Calls upon all States to redouble their 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;”

Operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.39/Rev.1) was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Pakistan, Egypt), with 11 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.39/Rev.1) by a vote of 144 in favour to 1 against (India), with 12 abstentions. (See Annex II).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of China said that his country supported the main objectives of the draft resolution, noting that it quoted relevant wordings of the final document of the last NPT Review Conference. The text, however, had certain inadequacies. It failed to mention certain main principles and measures that were indispensable for nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation, such as the responsibility of those countries who had the biggest and most advanced arsenals to engage in disarmament and the need to abandon the deterrence strategy.

The text also provided for the cut-off of the treaty negotiations by 2005, he said. That was different from the wording of the NPT document. Those negotiations were directly related to the prevailing international security environment. Artificial deadlines were unreasonable and unrealistic. China did not agree with the formulation of the report of the Tokyo Forum. Many of the contents of that Forum were impractical and unreasonable. Based on those positions, China had abstained in the vote.

The representative of Pakistan said that several provisions of the draft resolution were unacceptable. His country was totally against operative paragraph 8. It could also not endorse the provisions of most of operative paragraph 3. As a non-party to the NPT, it did not construe itself to be under any obligation contained in that paragraph. That was why his country was able to abstain, rather than vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that, in explanation of the vote this morning on the draft resolution on a new agenda (document A/C.1/55/L.4/Rev.1), he had set out his country’s approach to the draft resolutions on nuclear disarmament that were before the Committee. He would merely state now that the same considerations had applied to his approach to the present text, which had his support.

The representative of France said that in past years the Japanese delegation had taken a pragmatic approach to nuclear disarmament through the submission of its text. Today, any resolution on nuclear disarmament must faithfully reflect the balances achieved at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, but the text presented today only partially complied with that requirement, in both the preambular and operative portions. He deplored the selective use of quotations from the final document, which had applied to two essential points: treatment of the question of the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the elimination of their nuclear arsenals; and the lack of an explicit reference to general and complete disarmament in operative paragraph 3.

He said that on those fundamental and inseparable themes, the draft presented by Japan had departed markedly from the consensus achieved in New York last May. The present text was an interpretation of the 2000 Review Conference final document and article VI of the NPT, as well as the decisions taken in that regard in 1995. Thus, while fully committed to discharging all of its disarmament and arms proliferation commitments, he was, nevertheless, compelled to abstain in the vote.

The representative of Egypt said he had abstained in the vote, although he fully supported the resolution and associated himself with its objectives and noble goals. Indeed, the objective was to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He was, however, opposed to operative paragraph 8 and that had prevented him from voting in favour of the draft as a whole. He thanked the Japanese delegation for attempting to take the concerns of interested States into account. He hoped, the language of the text next year would allow for his support.

The representative of Iran said he appreciated the efforts made by the Japanese delegation in presenting a more streamlined text this year on nuclear disarmament. The text had identified effective measures of nuclear disarmament and had reflected much of the language of the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, which had strengthened the resolution. He, therefore, voted in favour of the draft. He had abstained in the vote on operative paragraph 8, which had not reflected the balanced outcome of the NPT discussions. He was persuaded by the positive inclination shown by the representative of Japan, which had been evident in his introduction of the revised text yesterday. A paragraph might be introduced next year based on the agreed language of the NPT review, which could be supported by all.

The representative of the Russian Federation had positively assessed the efforts of the text’s co-sponsors in the draft’s preparation and had noted the important fact that the measures on nuclear disarmament were reproduced from the final document of the 2000 NPT Review. He had been ready to support many of the measures contained in the draft. At the same time, however, the sponsors had selectively cited provisions from the final document which violated the fragile balance of interests achieved with enormous effort during the Review Conference. Thus, his delegation had abstained in the vote. Meanwhile, all countries should focus on implementing the decision of the NPT Review. One part of the final document could not be considered more important than any other part. It would, therefore, be hasty to support only part of those decisions while ignoring the others. He was ready to constructively cooperate in implementing the objectives enshrined in the final document.

The representative of Algeria said he supported the draft because it was useful and important and had referred to a number of gains made during the NPT Review Conference. The Japanese delegation had made great efforts to change the wording, yet the language of operative paragraph 8 was ambiguous, leading him to abstain in the vote. Hopefully, the Japanese delegation would make additional efforts during the next to enable the draft to obtain the widest support possible.

The Committee took up the draft resolution on a fissile material cut-off treaty (document A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.1).

The representative of Pakistan said that his country agreed with the thrust of the draft resolution and would be happy to join in its adoption without a vote. It was in line with the policies of his Government.

The Secretary of the Committee announced that the following countries had joined as co-sponsors of the draft resolution: Sweden, Myanmar, Algeria, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Belgium, Senegal, Mali and Guatemala.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution 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) without a vote.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Israel said that his country joined in the consensus on the draft resolution. It believed that assessing the modalities for negotiating the fissile material cut-off treaty could not be done in isolation of the peace process and the effort to limit armaments in that Middle East region.

The representative of Japan said that his country attached particular importance to the fissile material cut-off treaty. It was regrettable that six months after the Review Conference of the States parties to the NPT, the First Committee could only achieve an agreement which fell short of the outcome of that Conference. The deletion of a deadline in the draft resolution should not be construed as a lack of urgency in addressing that issue.

Next, the Committee turned to the draft text on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/55/L.11/Rev.2).

The representative of Egypt said that the eighth preambular paragraph had contained a reference intended to take into account the report of the Secretary- General of the OAU regarding the proliferation of small arms and the illicit traffic and trade in such arms. A number of African States, including his own, however, had registered reservations to that report during the most recent Togo summit. In view of the noble objective of the draft resolution and its direct link to the provision of assistance for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms, he would join consensus on the text. But, he did not consider that consensus to apply to that particular paragraph. He appreciated the Mali delegation, which had shown great understanding for his position. He asked the Secretariat to take into account the remarks regarding the translation from English into Arabic and vice versa, made by the representative of Mali at the morning meeting.

The Committee Secretary announced Mauritania had joined as a co-sponsor to the text.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on small arms without a vote.

As the Committee turned next to draft resolution 5 on regional disarmament and security, the representative of Cameroon said he had wished to make known regional disarmament efforts and sought to facilitate implementation of those efforts through appropriate assistance by the Secretariat to the regional entities concerned. Those concerns had been set out in the medium-term plan for disarmament through 2005, as well as in the guidelines and recommendations concerning regional approaches to disarmament in the context of international community, adopted by the Committee in 1993, which could only benefit regional disarmament and thus, international peace and security.

He said that the draft amendment (document A/C.1/55/L.53) to the draft resolution on regional disarmament (A/C.1/55/L.34) had received widespread support by Member States, but he had hoped it would be adopted by consensus. He had also been concerned about protecting the consensus on approval of the draft as a whole. Consultations had revealed, however, that the objective would be best served by specific textual supports. He would, therefore, like to have a draft resolution on the specific question at next year's session, and he would withdraw the amendment.

The representative of Belarus said that many States had adopted a positive spirit following the 2000 NPT Review Conference. That compromising spirit was clearly visible in the number of officially published revised draft texts -- 17 of 50 -- as well as official amendments. Last year, there had been only six official revised drafts, while now there were three times more. That increase was a positive trend, which had clearly demonstrated the constructive spirit being exercised by many delegations. His delegation had also been guided by that spirit. The draft resolution on regional disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/55/L. 46/Rev.1) had sought the support of the entire international community for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones. That was a noble objective. The spirit and language of the text were positive and, on the whole, had already received consensus support at many disarmament forums. He had, therefore, chosen it as basis for consultations with the countries of his region.

He said the consultative process had not been easy. His delegation had demonstrated a maximum spirit of compromise and had taken into account all of the comments made by the partners in Central and Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, work on the text, positive at the outset, had reached a point where there were no further comments, yet limited support as well. On the one hand, those countries yesterday voted in favour of drafts containing proposals to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones, including in South Asia, where there was no hint of a consensus right now. At the same time, those countries were unable to support his draft, which enshrined the fundamental principles reflected in the relevant recommendations of the Disarmament Commission. Indeed, the only reference to anything regional was contained in the title of the text.

He said he deeply regretted that the spirit of compromise and cooperation, which had been demonstrated by many, had, for some countries of his region, become an instrument for political prejudice. Apparently, they still remained prisoners of the spirit of the cold war. Undoubtedly, a vote on the draft would receive overwhelming support by those who sought to achieve peace globally and rid the world of nuclear weapons. It was unacceptable to have a draft resolution aimed at establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone become hostage to the political ambitions of certain individual States. The text must be adopted by consensus. Thus, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, his delegation would withdraw the draft.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/55/L.34) without a vote.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43).

The representative of Libya, speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, said that the members of the League promoted transparency in armaments. In order to be successful, any mechanism for promoting transparency in armaments should be balanced, comprehensive and non-discriminatory, and should promote the security of all States. The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms represented an attempt to address transparency in armaments at the global level. The Register had, however, encountered a number of problems, as almost one half of United Nations Member States had consistently failed to submit data for the Register.

The Register’s scope should be expanded, particularly as experience had shown that being limited to seven categories, it would not attract universal participation, he continued. In its present scope, it did not adequately meet the security needs of many countries. The future success of the Register was contingent on the willingness of the international community to build greater transparency. The Register should be advanced to include weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, so as to make it a more comprehensive and balanced instrument. The Register, at present, did not take into account the existing situation in Middle East, where Israel continued to occupy Arab territory and to maintain nuclear weapons. Israel was the only non-signatory to the NPT in the Middle East region and it continued to disregard the calls to become party to the NPT and to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Those concerns should be addressed effectively, so as to ensure universal participation in the Register.

The representative of Israel, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that he rejected the use of statements on the draft resolution before the Committee to launch political insults against his country. Many countries within the Arab League had refused to take part in transparency in disarmament.

Speaking on explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Egypt said that his country had always contributed to matters relating to transparency in disarmament. For the United Nations Register to attain its goal, it should be universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory. It should also ensure equal rights for all States and should provide the boldest degree of transparency in a non-selective manner. In its present form, the Register did not meet the needs of Egypt. Only an expanded Register that covered all weapons could meet those needs. He stressed the importance of revising and expanding the Register to include weapons of mass destruction. His delegation was disappointed at the outcome of the work of the group of experts in 2000. It would, therefore, abstain in the vote.

The representative of Pakistan said that his country had been submitting data regularly to the Register. It could, however, not support the convening of another group of experts. That was unwarranted. He would, therefore, abstain in the vote.

The representative of Mexico said that his Government supported the Register and transparency in military matters, but would abstain in the vote on the draft because of the provisions of operative paragraph 7, which invited the Conference on Disarmament to continue its work on transparency in disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament had not undertaken any work in that field for many years. Its work in that field had led to the creation of the Register and that exhausted its work. The draft did not indicate what the Conference would now do.

The representative of Oman said that, traditionally, his country had supported the draft resolution because of its conviction that the Register was a first step toward transparency in armaments. The Register, however, had some marked shortcomings, including its failure to address the legitimate concerns of all States. It also chose a limited area to address, while ignoring others. It was not a comprehensive arms register.

The representative of Syria said that his country fully supported the position of the Arab states on transparency in armaments. The draft did not take into account the particular situation in the Middle East, where the Arab/Israeli conflict was still raging because of Israel’s continued occupation of Arab territories and its continued acquisition of lethal weapons, including nuclear weapons. Syria would abstain in the vote.

The representative of Iran said that his country believed in a comprehensive approach towards transparency in armaments. The Register was considered a first step in transparency. It was unfortunate that the initiation of transparency in nuclear weapons had been resisted and, as a result, the development of the Register was limited. The draft resolution had not addressed fundamental elements that needed to be seriously considered in promoting transparency in armaments. He would, therefore, abstain in the vote.

The representative of Israel, said his country was a co-sponsor of the draft and participated in the Register, unlike many countries in the Middle East. Many of those countries continued to stockpile weapons.

The representative of Syria, on point of order, said that the representative of Israel was taking to the floor for the second time on the right of reply. The right of reply should be at the end of the meeting. Besides, as a sponsor of the draft under consideration, Israel should not have been able to make statements in explanation of its vote. Those actions were violations of the rules of procedure.

The Secretary of the Committee announced that Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Mozambique, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Papua New Guinea had joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

Separate votes were held on the fifth preambular paragraph, operative paragraph 2, operative paragraph 5(b) and operative paragraph 7.

Preambular paragraph 5, which reads “Welcoming further the note by the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development”, was approved by a vote of 134 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Syria), with 12 abstentions (See Annex III).

Operative paragraph 2, which reads “Endorses the report of the Secretary- General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development and the recommendations contained therein”, was approved by a vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria), with 11 abstentions (See Annex IV).

Operative paragraph 5(b) reads: “Requests 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, taking into account work of the Conference on Disarmament, with the views expressed by Member States and the reports of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to a decision at its fifty-eighth session;”

Operative paragraph 5(b) was approved by a vote of 135 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria), with 12 abstentions (See Annex V).

Operative paragraph 7, which reads “Invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments", was approved by a vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 16 abstentions (See Annex VI).

The draft resolution as a whole on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was then approved by a vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions (See Annex VII).

The representative of Cuba, explaining his vote on the text on transparency in armaments, had supported the draft given its constructive balance and his country’s participation in the Register since its creation. He had also directly participated in the work of the group of governmental experts. The Register should also encompass weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That would significantly contribute to the Register, a goal whose priority had become more and more important. Yet, participation had decreased in the past few years. The number of participants, even in the Register’s best year on record, had never exceeded 100. Weapons of mass destruction could not be excluded from initiatives towards greater transparency.

He said he had hoped the Committee would adopt a future resolution on the Register that contained an integrated approach and implementation of transparency, which included weapons of mass destruction. Despite his favourable vote on the resolution as a whole, he had abstained in the vote on operative paragraph 7, because the Conference on Disarmament had already concluded its work on transparency and any decision to resume it was entirely up to the Conference itself.

The representative of China said that the Register was intended to record legal arms transfers among sovereign States. It was, therefore, regrettable that the United States had blatantly disregarded the relevant provision in the text. Since 1996, that country had used a so-called footnote to submit data relating to the sale of weapons to Taiwan, a province of China. That had changed the nature of the Register, leading to its politicization. The American arms sale to Taiwan had seriously violated Chinese sovereignty and grossly interfered in its internal affairs. The American sale of weapons to Taiwan, as noted in the Register, had objectively created in the United Nations “two Chinas”, or “one China/one Taiwan”.

He said his country could not accept that misguided action. It had been forced to suspend its participation in the Register, since the United States had not rectified its erroneous approach. It had been impossible for his country to participate in the Register and, therefore, impossible for it to support the draft. He called upon the country concerned to remedy its erroneous approach in order to create the necessary conditions for China to resume its participation in the Register and support of the relevant draft text.

The representative of Algeria said he could not support the draft, although his country attached much importance to transparency as a confidence- building measure. The expert report had contained important elements, but was still far from reflecting the position of many countries that wanted transparency to pertain to other types of weapons. He had been unable to support the draft, because its approach had ignored that wish and had continued to apply transparency in a limited fashion. The mechanisms defined in the operative portion of the text had not produced good results in the past and had revealed limitations. He supported any method aimed at elaborating a more comprehensive transparency, which included nuclear weapons.

The representative of Myanmar said that transparency could be a useful confidence-building measure if it was universal, non-discriminatory and voluntary. Transparency should also be applied to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. He respected the commendable intention of the co- sponsors of the text, but they should also recognize the reality. He had some difficulties with regard to some of the elements in the text, including in operative paragraphs 5(b) and 7. Operative 5(b), by which the Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and on its further development with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2003, was too ambitious and premature.

Moreover, he said, it had not seemed justifiable to invite the Conference on Disarmament to consider resuming the work already undertaken in the transparency field, as mentioned in operative paragraph 7. The Conference was not yet in a position to agree on a programme of work for next year, due to the divergent views on banning fissile materials, nuclear disarmament and security assurances. It was unwise to take a hasty decision on transparency in arms. More time was needed to study that possibility in depth. Thus, he had abstained in the votes on operative paragraph 5(b), 7, and on the draft as a whole.

Introduction of Revised Draft Resolution

AHMED H. DARWISH (Egypt) introduced the revision to the draft resolution on risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2). A revised sixth preambular paragraph reads, as follows: “Recognizing with satisfaction that, in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Conference undertakes to make determined efforts towards the achievement of the goal of universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and called upon those remaining States not party to the treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an internationally legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities, and underlines the necessity of universal adherence to the Treaty and of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the Treaty.”

He said his delegation had undertaken extensive consultations with all delegations pertaining to that revision, which was derived from the language of the resolution adopted during the Sixth Review Conference of the NPT. He, therefore, would ask that the 24-hour rule pertaining to taking decisions on resolutions be waived.

The Committee CHAIRMAN acknowledged the 24-hour rule, but said that the Committee was its own master. It, thus, might dispense with that rule and take action on the text.

The representative of Iraq said that the draft resolution had been submitted by the Egyptian delegation on behalf of “some” Arab States. Iraq, as a member of League of Arab States, had not been among them. He would, therefore, like to express his strong reservations on the last part of the sixth preambular paragraph, which underlines the adherence to the NPT and strict compliance by all parties to the Treaty. All States of the region except the Zionist entity were members of the NPT. States which had nuclear facilities or nuclear activities had all signed arrangements with the IAEA safeguards system. The Zionist entity was the only one in the region that had refused to accede to the Treaty and place its nuclear arsenals under IAEA safeguards. That entity was developing nuclear weapons with the help of a depository State of the NPT, namely the United States. What was needed was an explicit reference to that assistance by the United States to Israel, to aid in the development of its nuclear weapons and to protect that entity from any international action, which had led Israel not to accede to the NPT.

The CHAIRMAN interrupted the statement to state that the Committee was not explaining its position on the draft, but was considering the procedural aspect of whether to take up the draft or not at the current meeting. The representative of Iraq, therefore, should conclude its statement.

The representative of France requested a brief suspension of the meeting to enable members to engage in consultation before the vote.

The representative of Algeria said that only one week ago, the General Assembly had waived the 24-hour rule in order to take a decision at the request of the same delegation now calling for the application of that rule. The proposed amendment by the Egyptian delegation was balanced and met the expectations and wishes of many delegations, as it had accurately reflected the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. He, therefore, supported the Egyptian proposal and requested that the Committee immediately embark on consideration of the text. .

The representative of Iran said that the positions on the text were rather clear and the first revision had been on the table since 26 October. He had been cognizant of consultations aimed at producing a revised text which could be acceptable by more parties. As the representative of Egypt had explained, those consultations had been based on the language of the Final Document. The new revised paragraph again had reflected the NPT agreement. Since the Committee was facing agreed language, there was no need for a delay.

The representative of Mexico, on a point of order, drew the Chairman’s attention to rule 118, which stated that during a discussion of any matter a representative may move to suspend a meeting, and that such motion shall not be debated, but shall immediately be put to a vote. Rule 119 had reaffirmed that. The representative of France had asked for a suspension. He, therefore, objected to the ongoing debate. The meeting should either be suspended or a vote should be taken to do so. “Let’s stick to the rules; it’s late enough as it is”, he added.

The CHAIRMAN called the Committee’s attention to the lateness of the hour and informed that interpretation would be available only until 6:30 p.m. He then suspended the meeting for five minutes.

In a resumed meeting, the Chairman said he had asked the Secretariat to extend interpretation services for the duration of the meeting. He proposed that rule 120, or the 24-hour rule, be waived and that the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East be considered.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A.C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2).

The representative of Iraq said that his country had reservations on the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East because all countries in the region, except the Zionist entity, were parties to the NPT. They had all signed safeguard arrangements with the IAEA, but those safeguards were not observed by the Zionist entity. With the help of the United States, Israel was developing nuclear weapons. That prevented universal adherence to the NPT. That situation should have been referred to explicitly in the draft resolution. Iraq did not join the Arab group in sponsoring the draft resolution. It would have suggested a separate vote on the sixth preambular paragraph of the draft and would have voted “no” on it.

The representative of the United States said that his country had opposed the draft resolution in the past. The addition of a new paragraph referring to the outcome of the NPT Review Conference to this year’s draft did not improve it. The draft singled out one country in the Middle East region.

The representative of Israel said that the draft resolution was blatantly one-sided and had the potential to undermine nuclear non-proliferation. Efforts were under way by some countries of the region to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The draft neglected the real risk to nuclear disarmament in the region, which emanated from the States parties to the NPT in the region who were not complying with their Treaty obligations. The draft resolution would not serve the greater objectives of nuclear non-proliferation in the region. The draft resolution focused on one country, which had not failed in meeting its obligations. The singling out of Israel in the draft resolution did not lend credibility to the First Committee.

The Secretary of the Committee said that Afghanistan had joined as a sponsor of the draft resolution.

The Committee first voted on the sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution, which reads: “Recognizing with satisfaction that, in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Conference undertakes to make determined efforts towards the achievement of the goal of universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and calls upon those remaining States not party to the Treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an internationally legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities, and underlines the necessity of universal adherence to the Treaty and of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the Treaty.”

The paragraph was approved by a vote of 138 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Marshal Islands, Pakistan, Tonga) (see Annex VIII).

The Committee then adopted the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2), as a whole, by a vote of 139 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 7 abstentions (Australia, Canada, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago) (see Annex IX).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of India said that his country had abstained from the vote on the draft as a whole and had voted “no” on the sixth preambular paragraph. India believed that the focus of the draft should be limited to the region it addressed. The issues it raised had received widespread consideration in the international arena.

The representative of Tunisia said that his indicator had not operated properly during the voting. His country would have voted in favour of the sixth preambular paragraph.

The representative of France, on behalf of European Union and associated States, said that they voted in favour of the draft, fully taking into account the new elements it incorporated. The Union hoped that those elements would be implemented in all of its aspects.

The representative of Norway acknowledged the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Initiatives leading to nuclear disarmament in the Middle East would be helpful. To be effective, such initiatives should include all weapons of mass destruction, and to achieve that goal it was important that no party be “singularized”. Previous texts had not been balanced and had addressed selective parts of the issue. This year, the draft included essential elements. Norway wanted to encourage that approach and, as such, had voted in favour of the draft.

Statements by Regional Groups

Representatives of the following regional groups expressed their appreciation for the work of the Committee and to the Bureau and the secretariat: Mauritania on behalf of the Group of African States; South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement; Slovenia on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States; Germany on behalf of the Group of Western European and Other States; France on behalf of the European Union; Kyrgyzstan on behalf of the Asian States; Brazil on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States; and Libya on behalf of the Arab States.

Other Remarks

The representative of Egypt thanked States for supporting the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and delegations that had shown flexibility in approving the text at today’s meeting.

The representative of the Gambia said that had he been present, he would have voted in favour of the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

The representative of Viet Nam, speaking on behalf of the member States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), also expressed his appreciation for the work of the Committee.

The representative of France said he had wrongly named Norway as associated with the statement made on behalf of the European Union.

The Committee Secretary, LIN KUO-CHUNG, announced that there was a tentative date for the adoption of the Committee’s draft resolutions in the General Assembly -- Monday, 20 November. On a personal note, he said he was approaching the end of his career at the United Nations. In other words, he would “go fishing” next March for good. During the past 23 years in the field of disarmament, he had served in numerous posts, including as Secretary or Secretary-General of various multilateral disarmament forums on a variety of subjects, such as working groups on security assurances and radiological weapons of the Conference on Disarmament in the early 1980s, and the Disarmament Commission for 10 years. He also served as Secretary of the main committee on blinding laser weapons during the last review conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to name a few.

Since it was his last session at the United Nations, he said he felt duty- bound to reciprocate his sincere thanks to all chairmen, members of the Bureau and delegations for their kindness during the past years. In that time, achievements in the field of disarmament had been up and down, as the international political environment had changed in a more or less 10-year cycle. A historic agreement on all disarmament issues had been reached in 1978 with the adoption of the Final Document of the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. Then, serious concerns on the nuclear arms race and the danger of nuclear war overwhelmed international relations during the 1980s. The post-cold- war era turned into a golden age for arms control and disarmament, with the conclusions of START I and II, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Consequently, the goal of nuclear disarmament had become a priority issue, although that had always seemed to him to be a philosophical question.

Nevertheless, he said, the conclusions of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the CTBT were considered as “missions impossible” during the 1980s, but today that remote hope had turned into reality. As a personal wish, he hoped the philosophical question of nuclear disarmament would someday turn into reality with the concerted efforts of the entire international community, and the mission would be completed. There was a popular Chinese saying that “while the prospects are bright, the road to the goal always has twists and turns”. He paid tribute to the Chairman, under whose able guidance the Committee concluded its work successfully and smoothly with efficiency and discipline in a businesslike manner. He also thanked the Chairman for his friendship and kindness during their years of work in the Committee.

In his concluding statement, the Committee Chairman, MYA THAN (Myanmar), said that the positive outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference had had a positive impact on the work of the Committee. Nuclear and space issues dominated the deliberations in the Committee this year, but the issues addressed

were balanced. The issue of small arms was very much in the forefront, and other conventional arms control issues, such as anti-personnel mines and transparency in disarmament, were extensively covered.

This year, the three draft resolutions on nuclear disarmament underwent perceptible changes and became more flexible and forward-looking, he said. They embraced positive elements of the NPT Review Conference. The most urgent message that rang out from this year’s deliberations and resolutions was the imperative to overcome, in 2001, the current impasse in the Conference on Disarmament and to immediately start negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty, as well as commence substantive work on other agenda items. That would be a turning point for the Conference and for the international efforts at arms control and disarmament in other international forums.

He said that the challenge was how to translate the positive atmosphere and political impetus that marked the deliberations into concrete results in disarmament forums, particularly the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. The international community should do its utmost to make that happen.

He thanked members of the Committee, particularly the members of the Bureau, for the cooperation they extended to him. He also thanked the members of the secretariat for their assistance, paying special tribute to the Committee Secretary, Lin Kuo-Chung, who would be retiring early next year.

(annexes follow)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3194 28th Meeting (PM) 1 November 2000

ANNEX I

Vote on Operative Paragraph 8 of Nuclear-Weapon Elimination

Operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.39/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, 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, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Egypt, Pakistan.

Abstain: Algeria, Benin, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Monaco, Sudan, Syria.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, France, Grenada, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Morocco, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon Elimination

The draft resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.39/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 1 against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, 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, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, 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, 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.

Abstain: Bhutan, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, France, Israel, Mauritius, Monaco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russian Federation.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Fifth Preambular Paragraph of Transparency in Armaments

The fifth preambular paragraph in the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 134 in favour to 2 against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Egypt, Syria.

Abstain: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Operative Paragraph 2 of Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 3 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Egypt, Lebanon, Syria.

Abstain: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Operative Paragraph 5(B) of Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 5(b) of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 135 in favour to 3 against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Egypt, Lebanon, Syria.

Abstain: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 7 of Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 16 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Burkina Faso, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

ANNEX VII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments

The draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 6 of Middle East Nuclear Proliferation

Preambular paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 2 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, 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, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, 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, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India, Israel.

Abstain: Bhutan, Cuba, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Tonga.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United States, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX VIII)

ANNEX IX

Vote on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation

The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 3 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, 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, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, 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, 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, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain: Australia, Canada, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *