Fifty-sixth General Assembly

First Committee

18^th Meeting (PM)

URGENT STEPS TO REDUCE RISK OF ACCIDENTAL USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

CALLED FOR IN DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

Ten Resolutions, Two Decisions Approved; Issues Addressed

Include Convention Banning Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones

The General Assembly would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons, according to a draft resolution approved this afternoon by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

One of 10 draft resolutions and two draft decisions acted on by the Committee, the text, submitted by India, on reducing nuclear danger was approved by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 43 against, with 13 abstentions.  (For details of the vote, see Annex II).

Other texts contained in the Committee's cluster I, on nuclear weapons, were approved on:  a new agenda towards a nuclear-weapon-free world; a convention banning nuclear weapons; assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of those weapons; the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons; a ban on the production of fissile material for use in those weapons; and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Drafts were also approved today on the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in Central Asia and the Middle East, as well as the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco).  Concerning other weapons of mass destruction, draft texts on the Chemical Weapons Convention and banning the dumping of radioactive wastes were also approved.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the Assembly called, once again, upon all States to immediately commence multilateral negotiations in 2002 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention banning the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

The text was approved by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 28 against, with 19 abstentions (Annex VI).

Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, the Committee approved the first operative paragraph by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with two abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, United Kingdom).  That provision underlined the unanimous conclusion of the Court that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control (Annex V).

The Assembly, convinced that the use of those weapons poses the most serious threat to the survival of mankind, would reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, according to another text on nuclear weapons approved by a vote of 90 in favour to 42 against, with 11 abstentions (Annex I).

According to another nuclear weapons-related text, approved by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to none against, with 52 abstentions, the Assembly would reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (Annex III).

By a vote of 141 in favour to 1 against (India), with 3 abstentions (Cuba, Israel, Pakistan), the Committee approved a draft resolution that would have the Assembly take note of the decision of the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), following appropriate consultations, to hold the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee, for the 2005 NPT Review Conference in New York from 8 to 19 April 2002 (Annex IV).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved texts by which the Assembly would:

-- recall the decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

-- decide to include the item "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  the need for a new agenda" in the agenda of its next session;

-- urge all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East;

-- decide to include establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia in the provisional agenda of its next session;

-- welcome the concrete steps taken by some States of the region during the last years for the consolidation of the regime of military denuclearization established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco);

(page 1b follows)

-- stress the vital importance of full and effective implementation of and compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention;

-- and express grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States.

The representatives of Cuba spoke before action on the texts.  Pakistan, Israel, United States, Republic of Korea, India, Japan, Netherlands, Egypt and the Dominican Republic spoke on explanation of vote.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 31 October, to continue its third stage of work, namely action on all draft resolutions and decisions.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to begin its third phase of work, namely decisions on all security -- and disarmament-related items.

The third phase of the work of the First Committee is divided into

10 clusters:  nuclear weapons; other weapons of mass destruction; outer space; conventional weapons; regional disarmament and security; confidence-building measures; disarmament machinery; other disarmament measures; related matters of disarmament and international security; and international security.

Action was expected today on the following texts from cluster one:  a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/56/L.5); the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/56/L.17); the 2005 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (document A/C.1/56/L.38); nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/56/L.12); reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/56/L.14); Treaty of Tlatelolco (document A/C.1/56/L.17); negative security assurances, (document A/C.1/56/L.26); the Conference on Disarmament decision (document A/C.1/56/L.31);  International Court of Justice decision on the legality of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.45); and a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/56/L.48).

Under cluster two, other weapons of mass destruction, texts on the following topics could be considered for action:  dumping of nuclear wastes (document A/C.1/56/L.33); and the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/56/L.32).

By the terms of a draft text sponsored by Egypt on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/56/L.5), the Assembly would urge all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of the proposal for such a zone in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Assembly, and, as a means of promoting this objective, would invite the countries concerned to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The Assembly would call upon all countries of the region that had not yet done so, pending the establishment of the zone, to agree to place all their nuclear activities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.  It would also take note of the resolution adopted in September by the General Conference of the IAEA at its forty-fifth regular session, concerning the application of Agency safeguards in the Middle East.

The resolution of the General Conference of the IAEA of September 2001 (document GC (45)/RES/18) affirms the urgent need for all States in the Middle East to forthwith accept the application of full-scope Agency safeguards to all their nuclear activities as an important confidence-building measure among all States in the region and as a step in enhancing peace and security in the context of the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

That text also calls upon all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and appropriate steps required for the implementation of the proposal to establish a mutually verifiable nuclear-weapon-free zone in region, and invites the countries concerned to adhere to international non-proliferation regimes, including the NPT, as a means of complementing participating in a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and of strengthening peace and security in the region.]

In a related provision, the Assembly would invite all countries of the region, pending the establishment of the zone, not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit stationing on their territories, or territories under their control, of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices.  It would also invite the nuclear-weapon States and all other States to render their assistance in the establishment of the zone and at the same time to refrain from any action that ran counter to both the letter and spirit of the present text.

According to a draft text on a convention banning the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.12), the Assembly, convinced that the use of those weapons poses the most serious threat to the survival of mankind, would reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances.  It would also request the Conference to report to the Assembly on the results of those negotiations.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Fiji, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Sudan and Viet Nam.

The draft resolution entitled "Reducing nuclear danger" (document A/C.1/56/L.14) would have the Assembly, convinced that nuclear disarmament and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons are essential to remove the danger of nuclear war, would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in this context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons.  It requests the five nuclear-weapon States to take measures towards the implementation of that provision.

Under a related term, the Assembly would call upon Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.

It would take note of the 2001 report of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, in particular the seven recommendations highlighted for further action.  In that connection, it would request the Secretary-General to take steps for the implementation of the seven recommendations that would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear war, including the proposal contained in the United Nations Millennium Declaration for convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers, and to report thereon to the Assembly at its next session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bhutan, Cambodia, Colombia, Fiji, India, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia and Sudan.

According to draft text sponsored by Mexico, consolidating the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) (document A/C.1/56/L.17), the Assembly, noting with satisfaction that the Treaty is now in force for 32 sovereign States of the region, would welcome the concrete steps taken by some of them during the last years for the consolidation of the regime of military denuclearization established by the Treaty.  It would urge the countries of the region that have not yet done so to ratify the amendments to the Treaty.

A draft text on concluding security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States (document A/C.1/56/L.26) would have the Assembly reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

It would appeal to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach, and, in particular, on a common formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character.

In a related provision, the Assembly would recommend that further intensive efforts be devoted to the search for such a common approach or formula and that the various alternative approaches, including, in particular, those in the Conference on Disarmament, be further explored in order to overcome the difficulties.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Fiji, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam.

By the terms of a draft resolution sponsored by Canada on banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (document A/C.1/56/L.31), the Assembly would recall the decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The Assembly would also urge the Conference to agree on a programme of work that included the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/56/L.45), the Assembly would underline, once again, the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there existed an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective control.

It would call, once again, upon all States immediately to fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 2002 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, San Marino, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam.

A draft decision sponsored by Uzbekistan on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/56/L.48) would have the Assembly decide to include that item in the provisional agenda of its next session.

A draft resolution sponsored by Canada and Poland on implementing the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and use of Chemical Weapons and On Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) (document A/C.1/56/L.32), noting with satisfaction three additional ratifications or accessions to the Convention, would have the Assembly emphasize the necessity of universal adherence to the Convention and call upon all States to become States parties to the Convention without delay.

In a related provision, the Assembly would stress the vital importance of full and effective implementation of and compliance with all its provisions.  It would also stress the importance of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in verifying compliance with the provisions of the Convention, as well as in promoting the timely and efficient accomplishment of all its objectives.  It would urge all States parties to meet in full and on time their obligations under the Convention and to support the OPCW in its implementation activities.

Under another draft resolution, sponsored by Sudan on behalf of the Group of African States, on the dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/56/L.33/ Rev.1), the Assembly would express grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States.  It would call upon all States to prevent any dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes that would infringe upon the sovereignty of States.

Also, the Assembly would request the Conference on Disarmament to take into account, in the negotiations for a convention on the prohibition of radiological weapons, radioactive wastes as part of the convention's scope.  It would further ask it to intensify efforts towards an early conclusion of such a convention and to include in its report to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session, the progress made in those negotiations.

The Assembly would express the hope that effective implementation of the IAEA Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste would enhance the protection of all States from the dumping of radioactive wastes on their territories.

According to a draft resolution sponsored by Algeria on the 2005 NPT review (document A/C.1/56/L.38), the Assembly would take note of the decision of the parties to the Treaty, following appropriate consultations, to hold the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee in New York from 8 to 19 April 2002, and request the Secretary-General to render the necessary assistance.

A draft decision sponsored by South Africa entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  the need for a new agenda" (document A/C.1/56/L.15) would have the Assembly decide to include the item in the agenda of its next session.

According to a new resolution sponsored by Mexico on convening a United Nations conference to eliminate nuclear dangers (document A/C.1/56/L.16), the Assembly, expressing its concern at the threat to humanity represented by the existence of nuclear weapons, would decide to convene a United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament not later than 2006 in New York, as a follow-up of the resolve expressed by Member States in the Millennium Declaration.

It would further decide to establish a preparatory committee open to participation by all States, which will hold no fewer than three sessions, the first session to be held in New York not later than July 2003, the dates of which will be decided at its fifty-seventh session.

The Assembly would request the Committee to recommend the dates for the holding of the conference at its fifty-eighth session and to make recommendations to the conference on all relevant matters, including a draft agenda, draft rules of procedure and draft final documents and to decide on background documents to be made available in advance.

Under a related provision, it would underline the need for the international community to address nuclear disarmament and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in all its aspects.  The Assembly would also underline the importance of complementing the efforts of the Conference on Disarmament and the review process of the NPT to address disarmament.

Statements

OSCAR LEON GONZALEZ (Cuba) said he wished to make clear, once again, his position on the NPT.  That Treaty had legitimized the possession of nuclear weapons for a restricted membership in a "club".  Some countries had not been subjected to inspections or required to submit to international safeguards.  There was also no coverage of any vertical deployment, according to the Treaty.  Thus, his country had not wanted to sign or ratify it.  It would continue, in a transparent way, however, to work with nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and seek to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

He said that that threat to mankind must be ended.  All nuclear installations should be subjected to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.  It had scrupulously respected all such rules and regulations.  In 1999, Cuba signed an additional protocol with the IAEA to the safeguards regime.  That decision had led to its participation in the NPT Review Conference, which was further proof of its serious approach to that issue.  Some States had expressed great optimism as a result of that 2000 Conference, but he had not thought that it was time to "rest on our laurels", especially since no deadlines for the elimination of nuclear weapons had been established.  Thus, his delegation could not support those texts referring to the NPT.

Action on Texts

The representative of Pakistan said he fully shared the security concerns of the countries of the Middle East, with regard to Israel, and he supported the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone there.  He, therefore, would support the text presented by Egypt.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/56/L.5) without a vote.

The representative of Israel, speaking after the vote, said his delegation had joined consensus as it had done for the past 20 years, notwithstanding substantive and important reservations to certain elements in the draft.  The "nuclear issue", as well as all regional security issues, should be dealt with in the full context of the peace process.  Israel supported the eventual establishment of a mutually verifiable nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East that should also be free of chemical and biological weapons, and ballistic missiles.

He said that the political realities in the region, however, mandated a step-by-step approach, beginning with confidence-building measures, peaceful relations, and peaceful reconciliation, possibly complemented by arms control measures.  That could lead to more ambitious goals, such as the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.  Moreover, the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone should be based on arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region.  Such a zone could only be established through direct negotiations, after those recognized each other and had established peaceful relations between them.

Continuing, he said that such a zone could not be established in situations where some had maintained that those were in a state of war with each other, refusing peace with Israel or even recognizing its right to exist.  In the Middle East, unlike in other regions where such a zone had been established, there were continuing threats in the region and beyond against the very existence of one State in the region, namely Israel.  That had had a critical impact on the region's ability to establish such a zone.  In view of the present reality, efforts in the context of the draft resolution should be focused towards a stable, peaceful environment.  Israel would continue to dedicate all of its efforts to achieve that goal.  He called upon its neighbours to do the same.

The Committee Secretary explained that the following countries had become co-sponsors of the resolution on the Convention on Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.12):  Afghanistan, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Haiti, Laos, Namibia, Nauru, Zambia, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, and El Salvador.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on the Convention Prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.12) by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 42 against, with 11 abstentions. (For details see Annex I).

The representative of Pakistan, speaking after the vote, said he had actually wanted to speak before the vote.  He was opposed to the use of nuclear weapons or any other weapons contrary to the principle of the non-use of the threat of force in the United Nations Charter.  The use of such weapons, whether nuclear or conventional, also ran contrary to the principles of the Charter.

The representative of the United States, speaking after the vote, said he had voted no because the United States would never approve of the type of convention called for in the text, because it was simply not practical.  Progress in disarmament to date had been made by step-by-step efforts, taken bilaterally and multilaterally.

The representative of Zambia, speaking after the vote, said that his delegation would have voted in favour of the text had he been in the room.

The representative of Pakistan, speaking before the vote on the draft on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/56/L.14), said that the best way to eliminate nuclear danger was through the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.  Until then, he supported arms control and disarmament measures, as those could equitably and effectively reduce the danger of the use of nuclear weapons.  Although he had reservations on some of the draft's provisions, he would vote in favour of the text, since he strongly supported its objectives.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/56/L.14) by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 43 against, with

13 abstentions (Annex II).

The Committee turned next to the draft (document A/C.1/56/L.15) towards a nuclear weapons-free world, the need for a new agenda, which Ireland had joined as a co-sponsor.  The decision was adopted without a vote.

Next, the Committee adopted the resolution on the Treaty of Tlatelolco, (document A/C.1/56/L.17) without a vote.

The Committee turned next to the consideration on the draft on negative security assurances (document A/C.1/56/L.26).  The Secretariat informed delegates that Brunei Darussalam had become a co-sponsor of the draft resolution.  The resolution was then adopted by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to none against, with 52 abstentions (See Annex III).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the Republic of Korea said the draft did not reflect his concerns on whether assurances were to be given multilaterally, so he had abstained.

When the Committee’s attention turned to discussion of a draft resolution on the negotiations for a fissile material treaty (document A/C.1/56/L.31), the representative of Pakistan, speaking before the vote, said his country had agreed to open talks on a treaty banning the production of fissile material under the auspices of the Conference on Disarmament.  He agreed that the Conference on Disarmament should adopt a programme of work that included such an item in it.  Pakistan would be happy to join in the adoption of the resolution without a vote.

Before the vote, the Committee Secretary informed delegations that the following countries had become co-sponsors of the resolution:  Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

The Committee approved the resolution without a vote.

The representative of Israel, speaking after the vote, said he had joined the consensus on negotiation of a treaty for the banning of the production of fissile materials because the idea of the was subsumed in Israel’s concept of a nuclear-weapon-free zone for the Middle East.  That effort could not be separated from the efforts to build peace and reduce armaments in the region.

The Committee next turned to the draft resolution on the NPT (document A/C.1/56/L.38).

The representative of Pakistan said that he had expressed his reservations on the results of the Fifth NPT Review Conference last year in the Committee.  Consequently, he would abstain in the vote relating to the Conference, and for the same reason, he would dissociate himself from the text.

Following an announcement by the Secretariat that the draft's co-sponsors would like to see the text's approval without a vote, the representative of India requested a recorded vote on the text.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the NPT (document A/C.1/56/L.38) by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to one against (India), with three abstentions (Cuba, Israel, Pakistan).  (Annex IV).

The representative of India, speaking after the vote, said his delegation's views on the NPT were well known.  That instrument had remained discriminatory and remained inadequate and ineffective.  The proliferation of nuclear weapons and their delivery system had continued unabated, and the commitments made under Article VI towards nuclear disarmament had remained unfulfilled.  Further, he had not seen any progress in the Conference on Disarmament to commence any substantive and meaningful negotiations on nuclear disarmament.

The draft resolution under consideration, he said, sought to welcome the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, which had made a number of unacceptable and unwarranted references to his country, a non-party to the NPT.  He had rejected those references, unequivocally and in their entirety and, he therefore, cast a negative vote on the draft resolution.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/56/L.45).

The representative of El Salvador said that, as in previous years, he would join the text as a co-sponsor.

The Secretariat announced the following additional co-sponsors:  Uruguay, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Qatar and El Salvador.

Voting first on operative paragraph 1, which underlined the unanimous conclusion of the Court that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament, the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, Russian Federation and United States), with 2 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, United Kingdom).  (Annex V).

By a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 28 against, with 19 abstentions, the Committee approved the draft resolution as a whole (Annex VI).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Japan said that because those weapons had immense potential to cause grave suffering, the use of nuclear weapons ran contrary to the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. Nuclear weapons must never be used again.  Japan supported the decision of the International Court of Justice that States should pursue nuclear disarmament and conclude negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons.  That could be achieved only through a step-by-step process.  It was premature to call upon all States to take all steps to begin negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons by the end of 2002.  More practical steps could be taken first, before this sort of negotiations could take place.

The representative of the Netherlands, spoke on behalf of the Benelux countries of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, as well as the following countries that had aligned themselves with the statement:  Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Spain.  He said he supported the advisory opinion of the International Court of justice on the legality of nuclear weapons, which stated that there was an obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Though he supported the idea contained in the resolution that the ultimate aim of nuclear disarmament was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, could not support the resolution as a whole, he said.  Only one aspect of the International Court of Justice’s decision was included in the resolution, which was regrettable because the decision should be considered as a whole.  Nuclear disarmament could only be achieved on a step-by-step basis.  The international community should focus on implementing the practical measures decided upon at the sixth Review Conference of the NPT.

The representative of the United States said he voted against the resolution and the related paragraph because the texts used the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons decision as their basis.  Unilateral and bilateral efforts were yielding significant results on nuclear disarmament. That approach was the only practical way to achieve progress on such a complex issue.  Ongoing unilateral and bilateral negotiations continued to make real progress, and the Conference on Disarmament would continue to make progress on nuclear disarmament.  None of those successful measures were affected by the International Court of Justice’s decision.  States were reminded that the Court’s decision on the matter was only advisory, and not binding.

Next, the Committee approved the draft on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/56/L.48) without a vote. 

The Committee next took up the text on implementing the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (document A/C.1/56/L.32).

The representative of Egypt, speaking before the vote, said he had supported all proposals leading to regional stability.  From that position, he sympathized with the general thrust of the draft resolution on chemical weapons, as that Convention had banned, globally, an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, he would stress his well-known position on the Convention with respect to the Middle East -- while he favoured the prohibition of those and all weapons of mass destruction, as evidenced by its initiative to make the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, all States in the region should make reciprocal commitments.

He said that lasting peace could not be achieved through military superiority or a qualitative edge.  Although his country had been particularly active in the long and arduous negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament leading to the elaboration of the Convention, its position, since day one of its opening for signature in 1993, had emanated from its regional considerations and concerns.  In particular, Israel had declined to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention or join the NPT. 

Despite all of those considerations, he said he had not requested a recorded vote on the text, but he did not consider himself to be part of any consensus decision, particularly with respect to the first operative paragraph, which emphasized the necessity of universal adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The representative of Pakistan said he supported the draft resolution and, as a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention and of the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had wished to underline the Convention's importance.  A number of States parties had not yet submitted their initial declarations to the OPCW.  He underscored the need for the early destruction of chemical weapons by certain States which, even after adhering to the Convention, had not declared the destruction of their chemical weapons.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/56/L.32) without a vote.

The representative of Israel, speaking after the vote, joined consensus on the draft.  It had signed the Convention and had been very active in the preparatory commission leading to its elaboration, in order to shape the treaty into a workable mechanism.  By signing it, Israel had reflected its moral vision and commitment to a world free of chemical weapons.  Unfortunately, when it signed it in 1993, other countries in the region, including those that had used chemical weapons in the past or were believed to be working to improve their chemical weapons capabilities, had failed to follow suit.  Those had indicated that their position would remain unchanged even if Israel ratified the Convention. 

He said that his country's decision not to ratify the Convention thus far had related to its geopolitical environment.  At the signing ceremony in 1993, it had made clear it would seek to ratify the Convention, subject to regional security concerns.  The threat of chemical warfare against Israel had not diminished since then.  In fact, the overall security concern had actually increased.  Positive changes in the security climate in the Middle East would be a major impetus towards Israel's ratification.

Speaking before the vote on a draft resolution on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/56/L.33), the representative of the Dominican Republic said that there were important ideas in the draft.  Countries like his own could be victims of such dumping and they were conscious of the threat posed to the coasts and marine environment.  The Dominican Republic had always made sure that shipping and air companies complied with international laws prohibiting the dumping of dangerous wastes.  Given the susceptibility of developing countries to the dangers of the dumping of radioactive wastes, special consideration should be given to the concerns of small island States.

The representative of Pakistan said he supported the main objectives of the resolution, which were rooted in legitimate concerns.  Pakistan took issues of radioactive waste very seriously, having passed resolutions on the matter and created a nuclear regulatory committee to watch after the safety of all nuclear

materials.  Pakistan’s support did not imply their approval of operative paragraphs 8 or 9 of the resolution, which dealt with the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management.

The resolution was adopted without a vote.

The representative of India, speaking after the vote, said India was one of few countries that supported the inclusion of radiological weapons on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament.  In regards to operative paragraph 8, however, which referred to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management, India stressed that spent fuel was not a waste.  It was useful for energy-related purposes.

At the end of the meeting, several procedural issues were discussed.  The representative of the Netherlands wanted to know why the draft text on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/56/L.40) had not been included in the list of texts ready for action in the Committee’s working paper.  The Secretary explained that it had been left out because on oral statement on the text was expected.

The representative of Nepal said that, in the working paper, the title given to the resolution on a Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/56/L.50) was misleading, because it did not mention development.  The Acting Chairman explained that a similar document on the Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Latin America and the Caribbean did mention development.  Having been brought to his attention, he said, the problem would be corrected.

The Committee Secretary read a letter from the United States delegation to the First Committee explaining that arrangements had been made for a visit to the site of the World Trade Center disaster.  Participation would be limited to the first 110 persons to register with the delegation.  Each delegation could only send one person and there would be two separate visits.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Convention Prohibiting Nuclear Weapon Use

The draft resolution on a Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.12) was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 42 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Federated States of Micronesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Ukraine.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan,  Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Reducing Nuclear Danger

The draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/56/L.14) was approved by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 43 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, China, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Security Assurances to Non-Nuclear States

The draft resolution on security assurances to non-nuclear weapon States (document A/C.1/56/L.26) was approved by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to none against, with 52 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on 2005 NPT Review

The draft resolution on the 2005 Review Conference of the NPT (document A/C.1/56/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 1 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India.

Abstain:  Cuba, Israel, Pakistan.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Operative Para 1/ICJ Advisory Opinion Text

Operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution concerning the ICJ Advisory Opinion (document A/C.1/56/L.45) was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 4 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Federated States of Micronesia, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on ICJ Advisory Opinion

The draft resolution on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.45) was approved by a recorded vote of

99 in favour to 28 against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

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

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

Abstain:  Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan,  Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

* *** *