Fifty-sixth General Assembly

First Committee

19^th Meeting (AM)

FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINE CONVENTION STRESSED

IN DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVED BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

18 Texts Approved; Dual-Use Goods, Regional Disarmament,

Assistance in Curbing Small Arms Traffic among Other Issues Addressed

The General Assembly, determined to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, would stress the importance of the full and effective implementation of, and compliance with the Ottawa Convention, according to a draft resolution approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Approval of the text, which was co-sponsored by 124 Member States, was by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions.  (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

The draft was one of 18 draft texts approved today by the disarmament Committee under the broad topics of:  conventional weapons, regional disarmament and security; confidence-building measures, including transparency in armaments; disarmament machinery; other disarmament measures; related matters of disarmament and international security; and international security. 

[The formal name of the Ottawa Convention is:  Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.]

By terms of another text the Assembly, concerned that military applications of scientific and technological developments could contribute significantly to the upgrading of advanced weapons systems and, in particular, weapons of mass destruction, would urge Member States to undertake multilateral negotiations to establish guidelines for international transfers of dual-use goods and technologies with military purposes.

The Committee took that decision by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to     42 against, with 16 abstentions (Annex III).

By a recorded vote of 138 in favour, to 1 against (India), with 1 abstention (Bhutan), the Committee approved a draft resolution by which the Assembly would

request the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation of principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control.  (Annex II).

According to a draft resolution on the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace, the Assembly would reiterate that the participation of all permanent members of the Security Council and all maritime users of the Indian Ocean in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee would greatly help the advancement of peace, security, and stability in the Indian Ocean region.  That text was approved by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 37 abstentions (Annex V).

Another draft text would have the Assembly call upon States to adopt measures to ensure the application of scientific and technological progress in the framework of international security and without detriment to the environment.  The text was approved by a vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex IV).

Thirteen more texts were approved without a vote today.  According to a revised text on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them, the Assembly would encourage the establishment in the countries of the Sahelo-Saharan subregion of national commissions to combat the proliferation of small arms, and invite the international community to lend its support wherever possible to ensure the smooth functioning of those commissions.

Under the remaining draft texts, the Assembly would: 

-- call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and sub-regional levels;

-- reaffirm the critical importance of, and the vital contribution that had been made by, effective verification measures in arms limitation and disarmament agreements and other similar obligations;

-- call upon States to report annually, by 30 April, to the Secretary-General their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data were available.

-- recommend the adoption of the following items for consideration at its 2002 substantive session of the Disarmament Commission:  ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament;

-- reiterate that a fourth special session of the Assembly on disarmament could set the future course of action in the field of disarmament, arms control and related matters of international security;

-- urge the Conference on Disarmament to fulfil its role as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community, with a view to making early substantive progress on priority items;

(page 1b follows)

-- reiterate its strong support for the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean; 

-- urge the international community to devote part of the resources gained from disarmament and arms limitation agreements to economic and social development;

-- stress the particular relevance of the guidelines on conventional arms control/limitation and disarmament with a particular emphasis on consolidation of peace;

-- call on all States of the Mediterranean region to adhere to all the multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to disarmament and non-proliferation; and

-- call upon all States to continue to take measures to eliminate threats to international peace and security and prevent conflicts in South-Eastern Europe which could lead to the violent disintegration of States. 

Under a draft decision approved without a vote, the Assembly would decide to include the item on reviewing the Declaration on Strengthening International Security in the provisional agenda of its fifty-eighth session.

In other business today, the representative of the Russian Federation announced a revision to the draft resolution on preservation of and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) (document A/C.1/56/L.1/Rev.1).  He wished to make clear that the draft had not undergone any major changes and had incorporated one addition in tune with the present realities. 

Statements in explanation of vote were made by the representatives of the Republic of Korea, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Libya, Nepal, Iran, Myanmar, India, Cuba, Israel and Singapore.

Representatives from the following delegations participated in a discussion about whether to take action this morning on the draft concerning assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them:  Egypt, Jordan, Oman and South Africa.

Following a brief suspension of the meeting, the Committee acted upon and approved that text.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to continue taking action on all disarmament- and security-related draft texts.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue 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 ten 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 implementation of the Convention of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines (Ottawa Convention) from the cluster on conventional weapons.

Under the cluster, on regional disarmament and security, texts were expected on regional disarmament, and conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels.  Texts under the cluster, confidence-building measures, including transparency in armaments, would be ready for action:  Verification in all its aspects and objective information on military matters.

Action was expected today on the following texts under the cluster on disarmament machinery:  the report of the Disarmament Commission; the convening of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament; report of the Conference on Disarmament; and the United nations Centre for Peace Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Action was also expected today on the following texts under the cluster on other disarmament measures:  the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament; the relationship between disarmament and development; observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control; and the implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace.  Under the cluster on related matters of disarmament and international security, a text on the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures will be considered.

Texts on the following items listed under the cluster on international security would also be ready for action:  review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security; Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region; and on the good-neighborliness, stability and development of South-Eastern Europe.

According to a text on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/56/L.34), the Assembly would urge all States that had signed but not ratified the Convention to ratify it without delay.  It would urge all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information on article 7 of the Convention, concerning, among other things, national measures, in order to promote transparency and compliance with the Convention.

The Assembly would renew its call upon States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic integration of mine victims, mine awareness programmes, and the removal of anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world and the assurance of their destruction.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti and Honduras.

Also, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

By the terms of a draft text on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them sponsored by Mali (document A/C.1/56/L.51/Rev.1), the Assembly would encourage the establishment in the countries of the Sahelo-Saharan subregion of national commissions to combat the proliferation of small arms, and invite the international community to lend its support wherever possible to ensure the smooth functioning of those commissions.

It would welcome the Declaration of a Moratorium on the Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms and Light Weapons in West Africa, which was adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Abuja on 31 October, 1998, and encourage the international community to support its implementation.

By a related term, the Assembly would note with satisfaction the declaration of the African Ministerial Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation on the Continent held in Abuja on 9 May 2000.  It would encourage the Secretary-General to pursue his action in the context of the implementation of resolution 49/75 G of 15 December 1994 and the recommendations of the United Nations advisory missions, aimed at curbing the illicit circulation of small arms and collecting such arms in the affected States which so requested, with the support of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa and in close cooperation with the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

A draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.27) would have the Assembly call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and sub-regional levels.

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.  It would support and encourage efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at the regional and sub-regional levels in order to ease regional tensions and to further disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation measures at those levels.

Further, 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.

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

By terms of the draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/56/L.28), the Assembly -- convinced that conventional arms control should be pursued primarily in the regional and subregional contexts since most threats to peace and security in the post-cold war era arose mainly among States located in the same region or subregion -- would decide to give urgent consideration to the issues involved.

The Assembly would request the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation of principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control and looked forward to a report of the Conference on this subject.  It would also ask the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the subject and submit a report to it at its next session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Fiji, Germany, Italy, Nepal, Pakistan, Spain, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine.

According to a draft text on verification, including the role of the United Nations in the field (document A/C.1/56/L.30), the Assembly would reaffirm the critical importance of, and the vital contribution that had been made by, effective verification measures in arms limitation and disarmament agreements and other similar obligations.

The Assembly would request the Secretary-General to report to it at its fifty-eighth session on further views received from Member States pursuant to prior resolutions.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

By the terms of a draft resolution on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/56/L.42), the Assembly would call upon States to report annually, by 30 April, to the Secretary-General their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data were available. 

It would recommend the guidelines and recommendations for objective information on military matters to all Member States for implementation, fully taking into account specific political, military and other regional conditions, on the basis of initiatives and with the agreement of the States of the region concerned.

In a number of related provisions, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to undertake certain activities to strengthen the reporting system, among them, to continue consultations with relevant international bodies with a view to ascertaining requirements for adjusting the present instrument.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the Disarmament Commission (document A/C.1/56/L.4), the Assembly would recommend the adoption of the following items for consideration at its 2002 substantive session:  ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament; and practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms.  It would also request the Commission to make every effort to achieve specific recommendations on those items, and meet for a period not exceeding three weeks during 2002.

It would reaffirm the role of the Commission as the specialized, deliberative body within the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery that allowed for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations on those issues.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Egypt, Finland, Ghana, Jamaica, Myanmar, Nepal, South Africa, Sweden and Ukraine.

By the terms of a draft text sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement of countries on convening the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.19), the Assembly, reiterating that such a session could set the future course of action in the field of disarmament, arms control and related matters of international security, would decide, subject to the emergence of consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene the special session.

It would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the objectives, agenda and timing of the special session and to report to it at its next session.

A draft resolution sponsored by Egypt on the Report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.36) would have the Assembly reaffirm the role of the Conference as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community.  It would urge it to fulfil that role in light of the evolving international situation, with a view to making early substantive progress on priority items on its agenda.

The Assembly would welcome the strong collective interest of the Conference in commencing substantive work as soon a possible during 2002 and its decision to request the current President to conduct appropriate consultations jointly with the incoming President during the inter-sessional period to try to achieve that goal.

A draft resolution submitted by Haiti, on behalf of the States members of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/C.1/56/L.46) would have the Assembly reiterate its strong support for the role of the Centre in the promotion of United Nations activities at the regional level to strengthen peace, stability, security and development among its member States.

The Assembly would appeal to Member States, in particular the States of Latin America and Caribbean region, and to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and to foundations, to make voluntary contributions to strengthen the Regional Centre, its programme of activities and the implementation thereof.  It would request the Secretary-General to provide the Centre with all necessary support within existing resources, so that it may carry out its programme of activities and its implementation in accordance with its mandate.

By the terms of a draft text on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.13) the Assembly, concerned that military applications of scientific and technological developments can contribute significantly to the upgrading of advances weapons systems and, in particular, weapons of mass destruction, urge Member States to undertake multilateral negotiations with the participation of all interested States in order to establish universally acceptable, non-discriminatory guidelines for international transfers of dual-use goods and technologies and high technology with military purposes.

At the same time, the Assembly would affirm that scientific and technological progress should be used for the benefit of all mankind to promote the sustainable economic and social development of all States and to safeguard international security and that international cooperation in the use of science and technology through the transfer and exchange of technological know-how for peaceful purposes should be promoted.

In a related provision, it would invite Member States to undertake additional efforts to apply science and technology for disarmament-related purposes and to make disarmament-related technologies available to interested States.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Bhutan, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Fiji, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Peru, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Viet Nam.

Another draft resolution sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/56/L.20) would have the Assembly urge the international community to devote part of the resources gained from disarmament and arms limitation agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the ever widening gap between developed and developing countries.

The Assembly would invite all Member States to communicate to the Secretary-General, by 15 April 2002, their views and proposals for the implementation of the Action Programme adopted at the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development.  It would also request the Secretary-General to continue to take action, through appropriate organs and within available resources, for the implementation of the Action Programme.

By the terms of another draft text sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, on observance of environmental norms in disarmament and arms control agreements (document A/C.1/56/L.21), the Assembly would call upon States to adopt unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral measures to contribute to ensuring the application of scientific and technological progress in the framework of international security, disarmament and other related spheres, without detriment to the environment or to its effective contribution to attaining sustainable development.

The Assembly would reaffirm that international disarmament forums should take fully into account the relevant environmental norms in negotiating disarmament and arms limitations treaties and agreements and that all States should fully contribute to ensuring compliance with those norms in the implementation of treaties to which they were parties.

According to a draft resolution on the Implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (document A/C.1/56/L.22) proposed by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the General Assembly would reiterate that the participation of all permanent members of the Security Council and all maritime users of the Indian Ocean in the work of the ad hoc committee would greatly help the advancement of peace, security, and stability in the Indian Ocean Region.  The Secretary-General would be requested to render, within existing resources, all necessary assistance to the Ad Hoc Committee, including the provision of summary records.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/56/L.39), the Assembly would stress the particular relevance of the guidelines on conventional arms control/limitation and disarmament with a particular emphasis on consolidation of peace in the context of General Assembly Resolution 51/45 N adopted by the Disarmament Commission by consensus at its 1999 substantive session.

The Assembly would take note of the report of the Secretary-General (A/52/289) on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament and encourage Member States, as well as regional arrangements and agencies, to lend their support to the implementation of the recommendations contained therein.

It would encourage Member States, including the group of interested States, to lend their support to the Secretary-General in responding to requests by them to collect and destroy small arms and light weapons in post-conflict situations.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland and Ireland.

Also, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia.

A draft decision sponsored by South Africa on behalf of Non-Aligned Movement on reviewing the Declaration on Strengthening International Security (document A/C.1/56/L.23) would have the Assembly decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-eighth session.

Under a text sponsored by Algeria on strengthening security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/56/L.37), the Assembly would reaffirm that security in the Mediterranean was closely linked to European security as well as to international peace and security.  It would call on all States of the region to adhere to all the multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to disarmament and non-proliferation, thus creating the necessary conditions for strengthening peace and cooperation in the region

The Assembly would encourage all States of the region to participate in the United Nations system for the standardized reporting of military expenditures and by providing accurate data and information of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.

It would also encourage those countries to strengthen their cooperation in combating all forms of terrorism, which seriously threatened regional peace, security and stability and the improvement of the current political, economic and social situation.  That also jeopardized friendly relations among States, hindered the development of international cooperation and resulted in the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the democratic basis of pluralistic society.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Andorra, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey and Yugoslavia.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the maintenance of international security-good neighbourliness, stability and development in South-Eastern Europe (document A/56/C.1/L.41/Rev. 1), the Assembly would call upon all States, the relevant international organizations and competent organs of the United Nations to respect the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states and the inviolability of borders, continue to take measures to eliminate threats to international peace and security and prevent conflicts in South-Eastern Europe which could lead to the violent disintegration of States.

The Assembly would call on all participants in the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, and all concerned international organizations, to continue to support the efforts of South-Eastern European States towards regional stability and cooperation, so as to enable them to pursue sustainable development and integration into European structures.

In a related term, the Assembly would reject the use of violence in pursuit of political aims, and stress that only peaceful political solutions could assure a stable and democratic future for South-Eastern Europe.  It would also stress the importance of regional efforts aimed at preventing conflicts, noting with satisfaction the role of the Multinational Peace Force for South-Eastern Europe.

The Assembly would urge all States to take effective measures against illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, to help projects aimed at the destruction of surplus stocks of small arms, and stress the importance of closer cooperation among States in such areas as crime prevention, illicit trade in people, organized crime, drug trafficking and money-laundering.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Yugoslavia.

Introduction of Revised Draft

ANATOLY ANTONOV (Russian Federation) introduced an updated version of the draft resolution on the preservation of and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) (document A/C.1/56/L.1/Rev.1).  He wished to make clear, from the very beginning, that the document had not undergone any major changes and incorporated only one addition, which was in tune with the present realities.  In accordance with the Genoa agreement between the Presidents of Russia and the United States, a dialogue was going on now between the two countries on interrelated issues of strategic offensive weapons and defence systems.  That dialogue included the discussion of a new strategic framework.  The ongoing consultations would largely determine the direction of the further evolution of the strategic situation.

He said that in view of those contacts, which were being maintained at various levels, he had introduced a corresponding amendment to the draft resolution.  He had tried to take into account the proposals by many delegations concerning the desirability to positively reflect in the draft the dialogue between Russia and the United States on strategic stability.  Specifically, he suggested the addition of a new operative paragraph 7 containing a reference to the ongoing dialogue between those two countries on a new strategic framework.  It was desirable for the General Assembly to express its opinion in that regard, as that dialogue related to vital issues and was taking place in a changing security environment. 

Such an amendment made the draft more concrete and more in tune with the latest developments, he said.  Hopefully, the addition would be met with understanding by the international community and confer on the text even greater support. 

[Under operative paragraph 7, contained in the revised draft resolution, the Assembly “welcomes the ongoing dialogue between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on a new strategic framework premised on openness, mutual confidence and real opportunities for cooperation, which is of paramount importance, especially in a changing security environment, and hopes that this dialogue will successful lead to substantial reductions in offensive nuclear forces and contribute to the maintenance of international stability”.]

Committee Chairman, Andre Erdos (Hungary), said he had received a request for a postponement of action on the draft concerning assistance to States in curbing the illicit traffic in small arms (document A/C.1/56/L.51/Rev.1).

Action on Texts

The representative of Cote D’Ivoire said his country wished to be a co-sponsor of the draft resolution (document A/C.1/56/L.1 Rev.1).  The Committee then took up the draft text on the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/56/L.34).

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the Republic of Korea said his country shared the concerns of the international community regarding the destructive effects of anti-personnel mines.  The issues of anti-personnel mines were not only humanitarian in nature, but had security implications as well. Because of security-related concerns that made the limited use of anti-personnel mines necessary, the Republic of Korea could not become party to the Ottawa Convention.  Their own use of mines posed little risk to civilians.  They adhered to the treaty on the use of certain conventional weapons and the treaty banning transport of anti-personnel mines, for example.  Unfortunately, the draft failed to meet all concerns and he could not vote for it.

The representative of Turkey, said his country was not yet party to the Ottawa Convention, but would vote for the resolution.  His Government attached great importance to the Ottawa Convention, one of the greatest contributions of the international community to eliminating the scourge of anti-personnel mines.  The security situation surrounding Turkey, very different from many of the parties to the Convention, did not allow it to sign the Treaty.  Turkey had, however, established a national moratorium banning the transport of anti-personnel mines.  He stressed Turkey’s determination to become party to the Ottawa Convention and said that Turkey and Greece would concurrently take the steps that would allow them to become parties to the Convention.

The representative of Egypt, also speaking before the vote, said his country was considered one of the most affected by landmines.  The continued existence of more than 22 million mines scattered across 288,000 acres of its territory, dating back to the Second World War, had caused serious concern to his Government.  Although he had supported the humanitarian objective that had inspired the Convention, that instrument had failed to address some pressing concerns.  In particular, the Convention had not provided a binding legal framework organized around the responsibility of those that had planted and deployed mines, or their responsibility to clear them. 

Moreover, he continued, the Convention had not dealt adequately or provided assistance for landmine clearance.  Nor had it taken into account the legitimate right of States to self-defence or recognized the use of anti-personnel landmines when no other financially feasible alternative existed.  His delegation, therefore, would abstain in the vote.  Meanwhile, his Government was engaged in trying to conclude a more comprehensive instrument that would take into account the concerns of all nations, as well as the breadth of the mine problem, once and for all.

The representative of Pakistan said that since his country was not a party to the Ottawa Convention and, given its security concerns, it could not vote in favour of the draft.  At the same time, his country was a party to amended Protocol II of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons).    His delegation would abstain in the vote on the draft resolution.

[Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons concerned prohibitions or restrictions of the use of mines, booby traps and other devices.]

The representative of Sri Lanka said that he would vote in favour of the draft, as in the past, in appreciation of the humanitarian objectives of the Convention, but his Government was not yet in a position to accede to the Convention because of its essential security considerations.

The representative of Libya said he wished to second the statement made by the Egyptian representative concerning landmines.  He fully supported the humanitarian goals of the Ottawa Convention, but his country’s position was clear that the Convention had failed to refer to the countries that had planted such mines in the territories of other countries.  He, therefore, called for amending the treaty, in order that it might include the responsibility of States that emplanted such weapons.  Those should also pay compensation and assist in demining.  He would abstain in the vote on the related draft.

The representative of Nepal said he had always voted in favour of the draft.  So far, his country had not become a party to the Convention, but it would not want to stand in the way of the draft resolution.  The thrust of the first operative paragraph -– inviting all States to accede to the Convention without delay –- might not be possible in light of some security concerns.

The representative of Liberia said that his country was a party to the Convention, and he said that his country should have been listed as a co-sponsor to the draft. 

The Committee Secretariat read out the following additional co-sponsors:  Antigua and Barbuda; Bahamas; Brunei Darussalam; Djibouti; Eritrea; Gabon; Guinea; Jamaica; Mali; Mauritania; Niger; Rwanda; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent-Grenadines; Samoa; Senegal; Swaziland; Tunisia; Turkmenistan; Uganda; United Republic of Tanzania; Vanautu; Yemen; and Zimbabwe.

By a recorded vote of 121 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, the Committee approved the draft resolution on implementation of the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/56/L.34).  (For details of the vote see Annex I).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Iran said he shared concerns reflected in the resolution on the Ottawa Convention.  Anti-personnel mines had been used irresponsibly and had claimed an unacceptably high number of innocent lives.  The Ottawa Convention was far from being a comprehensive campaign, however.  To end the problem, the campaign’s scope must be broadened.  The concerns of countries with long, insecure borders should be taken into account.  Anti-personnel mines remained the only safe way for such States to maintain security along sensitive borders.  Because the resolution did not address all of his country’s concerns, he could not vote in favour of the resolution.

The representative of Myanmar said the root cause of the damage done by anti-personnel mines lay in their indiscriminate use.  Therefore, the issue of the use of anti-personnel mines by non-State actors should be addressed as a priority.  He reminded those present that every State had the right to self-defence.  The Ottawa Convention was not yet practical for Myanmar, so he could not support it.

The representative of India said he remained committed to a universal ban on anti-personnel mines through a phased process that addressed the legitimate concerns of States, while also considering humanitarian concerns.  At the beginning of the process, confidence-building measures were needed for States with long, insecure borders.  Appropriate, militarily-effective, non-lethal technologies were needed to fill the role now taken by anti-personnel mines.  India would support a ban on the transfer of anti-personnel mines on a basis that addressed the concerns of all members.  India participated in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, including Protocol II, but could not vote for the resolution as presently formulated.

The representative of Cuba said he firmly supported the ban on any indiscriminate and irresponsible use of anti-personnel landmines.  He was opposed to their use in domestic conflicts and to the use of non-detectable mines or to any use that would adversely impact civilian populations.  His country was a party to the Ottawa Convention and had been actively involved in working out amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.  The final purpose of the negotiations on anti-personnel mines had been to guarantee the utmost protection to civilians, while not limiting the military capability of States to preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

He said that the absence of a reference to the legitimate security interests of States in the draft resolution just approved had been the main reason why he had abstained in the vote.  For more than 40 years, his country had been subjected to an absolute policy of hostility and aggression by the country with the greatest economic and military power on earth.  Cuba would otherwise not use that kind weaponry for its defence.  A necessary balance must be struck between the use of such a weapon and defence of national sovereignty.

The representative of Israel supported the ultimate goal of the Ottawa Convention, and towards that end, had begun taking concrete steps to reduce the proliferation and harmful effects of anti-personnel mines, including a moratorium on the export and production of those weapons and ratification of amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Convention Weapons.  His country had been actively participating in the mine awareness project launched by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in Angola and, earlier in the year, had signed an agreement to substantially expand that important project.

Israel had also substantially increased its financial support in that regard, he went on.  Nevertheless, he had abstained in the vote on the text because his country had had to resort to the use of those weapons in order to protect its civilians against terrorists.  Thus, it could not support an immediate and total landmine ban.  Rather, it had supported a gradual regional approach based, in part, on cooperation.

The representative of Singapore said he had supported and would continue to support all initiatives against the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines, especially when directed against innocent civilians.  In 1996, it had declared a two-year moratorium, which was later expanded to apply to all types of anti-personnel mines and not just those without self-neutralizing mechanisms.  That moratorium had been indefinitely extended.  At the same time, the legitimate security concerns and right to self-defence could not be disregarded.  A blanket ban on all anti-personnel mines might be counter-productive.  He supported global efforts to address the humanitarian concerns and would continue to work with the international community towards finding a durable and global solution.

The representative of Nigeria said he was absent yesterday during action on two draft resolutions.  Had he been present he would have voted in favour of the drafts on the nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/56/L.12) and on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/56/L.14).

The representative of Cameroon said he had not been present at the time of the voting, but he could have supported the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/56/L.34).

The representative of Burkina Faso said his country’s name had not been recorded in the last vote and proposed a review of the entire voting mechanism.

The Committee Chairman said that Hungary, too seemed to have been “wiped out from the face of the earth”, along with Burkina Faso and others.  The Secretariat would restore to the world those important countries.

The representative of Bulgaria said his country had also not appeared.

The Committee Chairman said that a new list would be presented shortly and the voting machine would be ready for action.  He said that a decision on the draft resolution on assistance to States for curbing illicit small arms traffic and collecting them (document A/C.1/56/ L.51/Rev.1) was now ready.

The representative of Mali introduced a revised draft resolution on assistance to States for ceasing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/56/L.51 Rev.1).  He said the new draft took into account the language used in both the Bamako Conference and United Nations small arms Conference.  This resolution had long benefited from support of ECOWAS and the European Union.  He Hoped it would enjoy broad support again this year.

The representative of Egypt asked whether the consultations on the revision on assistance for States in curbing the illicit trade in small arms were continuing, or if action would be taken.  The Chairman said that action would be taken.

The representative of Tunisia said he had intended to vote in favour of the text of the Ottawa Convention and was a co-sponsor, but had been left off the list.

Taking the floor again, the representative of Egypt explained that it had wished to continue consultations with the delegation of Mali on the resolution concerning assistance for States in curbing the illicit trade in small arms, but the draft was being made ready for action.  The draft was far away from both Bamako and the Programme of Action adopted at the United Nations small arms Conference, which was the cornerstone of efforts to deal with the problem.  Referring to language not agreed to at Bamako or the United Nations small arms Conference could hamper those efforts.  Adopting the draft with language different from that already agreed to would have negative impact on the follow-up process.  Egypt would not ask for a recorded vote, but did not consider themselves as part of the consensus, and wished that their concerns be recorded in the official documents of the Committee.

The representative of Jordan said that since the Committee was seeking consensus on the draft, because of its importance, he did not wish to block consensus.

The representative of Oman said the resolution on assistance to States in curbing the illicit trade in small arms had been a consensus resolution for many years.  Short consultations seemed to be necessary.  That had long been the spirit of the Committee and should continue to be so, in order to maintain consensus.  Oman would support the resolution, if tabled, but wished to note that consultations should be inclusive. 

The representative of South Africa, speaking on a point of order, requested deferment of action on the resolution.  He wondered if the delegation of Mali would consider that.  He only sought clarification.

The Chairman explained that the Committee needed to decide if an exception could be made by postponing the action by agreement in the Committee.  Since the delegate of South Africa had proposed it, the chair asked if others would wish to take the floor on the issue, then consider whether a postponement would be agreeable.  It was a consensus resolution, so the differences could not be great.

After a procedural discussion on whether or not a vote should be held on the revised text the meeting was suspended for considerations.

Following the suspension, the representative of South Africa said he wished to clarify that his delegation had sought clarification with regard to a delegation’s right to request a postponement of a vote.  Having done so, members ended up in a situation in which the Chairman had to make a ruling in terms of the rules of procedure. 

The small arms issue was extremely important he added and his delegation, therefore, had co-sponsored a draft resolution that it had considered to be among the most important before the Committee.  He had not seen linkages between any of the texts, nor had he considered it appropriate that such linkages be made.  Each text should be considered on its own merit and acted upon accordingly.  He could go along with the Chairman’s ruling to act and he withdrew his opposition.

The Chairman said he appreciated the decision that the Committee would soon take action on the text.

The representative of Egypt said that his objective when dealing with the issue of the small arms trade must be to abide by the agreement reached last July.  Departing from agreed language now would “get us nowhere”, especially given that a follow-up process was starting.  He, too, would go along with the chair’s ruling, but he wished to reflect his reservation, as mentioned earlier.

Proceeding to a decision on the draft resolution on assistance to States for curbing the illicit small arms trade and collecting them (document A/C.1/56/L.51/Rev.1), the Committee Secretariat read out the following additional co-sponsors:  Italy, Ireland, United Kingdom, Greece, Malta, Portugal, Luxembourg, Sweden, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Austria.

The Committee then approved the text without a vote.

Speaking after that decision, the representative of Georgia said he wished to join the draft as a co-sponsor. 

The Committee then turned to a draft text, on regional disarmament and approved it, without a vote, (document A/C.1/56/L.27).

Speaking before a decision on the draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/56/L.28), the representative of India said that, in 1993 the Disarmament Commission had adopted guidelines on conventional arms control, so he was not convinced that the second operative paragraph of the present text, calling on the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation of principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control, would have any productive value.  The Conference was a forum for the application of instruments of a global nature.

He said that in the Sixth preambular paragraph, which noted with particular interest the initiatives taken in different regions of the world to promote agreements to strengthen regional peace and security at the lowest possible level of armaments and military forces, a reference had been made to conventional arms control in South Asia.  India had security concerns that could not be confined to what could be referred to as “South Asia”.  The narrow definition of the draft resolution had not accurately reflected the security concerns in South Asia and had adopted an approach that was far too restrictive.  Accordingly, his delegation would vote against the text as a whole.

By a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 1 against (India), with 1 abstention (Bhutan) the Committee approved the draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels.  (Annex II).

The Committee then took action on the draft resolution concerning verification in all its aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification (document A/C.1/56/L.30), approving it without a vote.

The Secretary informed delegates that Malta, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation had become co-sponsors of the resolution.

Next, the Committee approved a resolution on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/56/L.42) without a vote.

New co-sponsors of that resolution were Cyprus, Grenada, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, San Marino, Thailand, Tonga, and Uruguay.

Acting without a vote the Committee then approved draft texts on the Report of the Disarmament Commission  (document A/C.1/56/L.4), the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.19), the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.36) and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/C.1/56/L.46).

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.13).  New co-sponsors of the resolution were:  Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Namibia, Pakistan, Zambia, El Salvador, Zimbabwe, and Swaziland.  The resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 42 against, with 16 abstentions (Annex III).

The Committee then approved the resolution concerning the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/56/L.20) without a vote.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said that he did not participate in the consensus on the resolution, which asserted a link between disarmament and development.  The United States considered those issues separate and would not consider themselves bound by the final document on the matter.

The representative of Belgium, speaking for the European Union and associated countries, recognized that there were great benefits accruing from disarmament, but there was no simple link between disarmament and development, which was why he could not vote for the resolution.

The Committee then took up the resolution on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of legislation on disarmament and arms control (document A/C.1/56/L.21) and approved it by a vote of 141 in favour, to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom and the United States).  (Annex IV).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said that he remained uncertain of the purposes of the resolution.  The United States saw no connection between general environmental agreements and multilateral agreements on arms.  No one would oppose preserving the environment, so environmental concerns would always be taken into account in negotiations.  While the resolution avoided overtly objective language of the past, its purpose remained unclear.  The United States, therefore, abstained in the vote.

Next, the Committee turned to the resolution concerning the implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (Document A/C.1/56/L.22) and approved it by a vote of 105 in favour to 3 against (United States, France, United Kingdom), with 37 abstentions (Annex V).

The Committee approved the resolution on the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/56/L.39), without a vote.  The Secretary informed delegates that new co-sponsors of the resolution were Azerbaijian and El Salvador.

The Committee approved the draft decision on the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security (document A/C.1/56/L.23) without a vote.  The draft text on the strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/56/L.37) was also adopted without a vote.  Albania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom were new co-sponsors of the resolution.

The Committee then adopted the resolution on good-neighbourliness, stability, and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/C.1/56/L.41/Rev.1)

without a vote.  Greece was an additional co-sponsor.  The First Committee Secretary said that, in operative paragraph 15 of that resolution, the word “and” should be added after the words “South-Eastern Europe”.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Cuba said he had not taken part in the voting out of respect for the wishes of the sponsors that it be adopted without a vote.  He wanted the record to show that Cuba had reservations concerning some concepts embodied in the resolution.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Ottawa Convention

The draft resolution on implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/56/L.34) was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Libya, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Syria, United States, Viet Nam.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Regional Conventional Arms Control

The draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/56/L.28) by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, 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, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, 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, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India.

Abstain:  Bhutan.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

      Vote on Rule of Science and Technology

The draft resolution on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.13) was approved by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 42 against, with 16 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, 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, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, 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, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, 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, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, Georgia, Japan,    Kazakhstan, Federated States of Micronesia, Paraguay, Republic of Korea,      Russian Federation, South Africa, Tonga, Ukraine, Uruguay.

            Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Environmental Norms

The draft resolution on observance of environmental norms on the disarmament and arms control agreements (document A/C.1/56/L.21) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, 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, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, 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, Federated States of Micronesia, 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, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Indian Ocean

The draft resolution on the implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (document A/C.1/56/L.22) was approved by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 3 against, with 37 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 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, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Federated States of Micronesia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

* *** *