Fifty-sixth General Assembly

First Committee

22^nd Meeting (AM)

DISARMAMENT AIMED AT ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS CALLED

FOR IN DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

Other Texts Approved Address Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty,

UN Conference on Nuclear Dangers, Small Arms, Africa Centre

The General Assembly, seized of the danger of the use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, in terrorist acts and the urgent need for concerted international efforts to control and overcome it, would recognize that the time was now opportune for all the nuclear-weapon States to take effective disarmament measures with a view to eliminating those weapons, by the terms of a draft resolution approved this morning in the Disarmament Committee.

By further terms of that draft resolution -- one of five texts approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) -- the Assembly would urge the nuclear-weapon States to immediately stop the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads, and, as an interim measure, to de-alert and deactivate immediately their nuclear weapons and take other concrete measures to reduce the operational status of related systems.

The draft, a traditional nuclear disarmament text of the Non-Aligned Movement of countries was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 35 against, with 19 abstentions.  (For details of the vote see Annex III). 

Prior to approval of the draft resolution as a whole, the Committee took a separate recorded vote on operative paragraph 9, which concerns endorsement for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as well as the decisions flowing from its review process.  That provision was approved by a vote of 132 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 6 abstentions (Cuba, France, Monaco, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex II).

Recorded votes were also taken today on two nuclear weapons-related draft decisions.  The first, a revised procedural text on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), would have the Assembly note the forthcoming Conference on Facilitating the Entry Into Force of the CTBT to be held in New York from 11 to 13 November and decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.  It was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (Annex I).

Explaining his opposition to the text after the vote, the United States representative said he had asked for a vote on the decision because his country did not support the CTBT.  As delegations were aware, in October 1999, the United States Senate voted not to give its advice and consent to its ratification.  While

the Administration had no plans to seek reconsideration of the Senate’s action, it intended to maintain its moratorium on nuclear testing, in effect since 1992, and urged all States to maintain such existing moratoriums. 

The second draft decision, entitled "United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament", would have the Assembly include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.  It was approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 7 against (France, Germany, Israel, Monaco, Poland, United Kingdom, United States), with 34 abstentions (See Annex IV). 

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons that would have the Assembly decide to convene a conference no later than 2006 to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, the date and venue to be decided at its fifty-eighth session.

Under a related text, also approved without a vote, the Assembly would appeal to the Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, in cooperation with the Organization of African Unity, regional and subregional organizations and the African States, to take steps to promote the consistent implementation of the Programme of Action on the illicit small arms trade.

Also this morning, Committee Chairman, André Erdös (Hungary) introduced a revised draft resolution on multilateral cooperation in disarmament and non-proliferation and global efforts against terrorism (document A/C.1/56/L.49/Rev.1).

General statements were made by the representatives of Israel, Algeria, Egypt, New Zealand also on behalf of Australia and Mexico, and Cuba.

Explanations of votes were made by the representatives of Canada, Belgium (on behalf of the European Union), Norway, India, China, Japan, Cuba, United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, and Pakistan. 

The Committee will meet 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.

Action was expected today on texts concerning the following issues:  nuclear disarmament; the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons; a United Nations conference to eliminate nuclear dangers; and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa. 

According to a draft resolution entitled "Nuclear disarmament" (document A/C.1/56/L.44)/Rev.1, the Assembly, seized of the danger of the use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, in terrorist acts and the urgent need for concerted international efforts to control and overcome it, would recognize that, in view of recent political developments, the time was now opportune for all the nuclear-weapon States to take effective disarmament measures with a view to the elimination of those weapons.

The Assembly would also recognize that there was a genuine need to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination.

Under related provisions, the Assembly would urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems, and, as an interim measure, to de-alert and deactivate immediately their nuclear weapons and to take other concrete measures to reduce further the operational status of their nuclear weapon systems.

The Assembly would also urge those States to commence plurilateral negotiations among themselves at an appropriate stage on further deep reductions of nuclear weapons as an effective measure of nuclear disarmament.  It would reiterate its call upon them to undertake the step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat and to carry out effective nuclear disarmament measures with a view to the total elimination of those weapons. 

The Assembly would further call upon the nuclear-weapon States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument on the joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.  It would call upon all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non-use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.

It would call for the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.  It would urge the Conference to agree on a programme of work that included the immediate start of negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their conclusion within five years.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Panama, Philippines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

According to a draft decision sponsored by New Zealand on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/56/L.10), the Assembly would note the forthcoming Conference on Facilitating the Entry Into Force of the CTBT to be held in New York from 11 to 13 November, and decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.

By the terms of a draft decision sponsored by Mexico on convening a United Nations conference to eliminate nuclear dangers (document A/C.1/56.L.60) the Assembly would include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-seventh session an item entitled “United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament”.

A draft text on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.47) would have the Assembly decide to convene a conference no later than 2006 to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, the date and venue to be decided at its fifty-eighth session.

The Assembly would also decide to convene a meeting of States on a biennial basis, commencing in 2003, to consider national, regional and global implementation of the Programme of Action.  It would call upon all States to implement it and encourage the United Nations and other appropriate international and regional organizations to undertake initiatives to promote the implementation of the Action Programme.

In a related term, it would encourage States to take appropriate national measures to destroy surplus, confiscated or collected small arms and light weapons, subject to any legal restraint associated with the preparation of criminal prosecutions, unless another form of disposition or use had been officially authorized and provided that such weapons had been duly marked and registered, and to submit, on a voluntary basis, information to the Secretary-General on types and quantities destroyed, as well as the methods of their destruction or disposition.

The Assembly would decide to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in those weapons at its next session, and it would request the Secretary-General to undertake a United Nations study, commencing at the current session, to examining the feasibility of developing an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace illicit small arms and light weapons and to submit the study to the fifty-eighth session.

      The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

According to a draft text sponsored by Togo on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/56/L.29) would have the Assembly commend the activities of the Regional Centre being carried out with the support of efforts made by the African States in the areas of peace and security.

The Assembly would appeal in particular to the Regional Centre, in cooperation with the Organization of African Unity, regional and subregional organizations and the African States, to take steps to promote the consistent implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

It would appeal, once again, to all States, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and the foundations, to make voluntary contributions in order to strengthen the programmes and activities of the Regional Centre and facilitate their implementation.

Introduction of Revised Texts

Committee Chairman, ANDRÉ ERDÖS (Hungary) introduced the revised draft resolution entitled “Multilateral cooperation in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation and global efforts against terrorism” (document A/C.1/56/L.49/Rev.1).  He said the draft was the result of a number of bilateral and multilateral consultations on the subject with many delegations.  After the introduction of the original text on 23 October, he had continued to work with various delegations to accommodate as many concerns as possible in order to find language acceptable to all.  He thanked all of those who, with their amendments, had contributed to making the text better and more agreeable -– not perfect, but something with which everyone could live. 

He said that a Chairman’s text was valid as long as it gave complete satisfaction to no one.  He had not expected cheerful applause for the text, nor its outright rejection.  He had sought to reflect a common denominator through language and formulations that could “hit the minimum level of agreeability”.  He had hoped that the text was an acceptable undertaking -– no more, no less.  There was a need to revisit the way the Committee had been conducting its business, thus far.  The outpouring of solidarity across the globe and in the Committee in the aftermath of 11 September had made the Chairman’s initiative “desirable and possible”. 

Recommendation of the text by the Committee would be indicative of a “new state of mind” in the disarmament and non-proliferation fields.  That could contribute to a global endeavour to overcome the unprecedented challenges of the twenty-first century and move ahead in a meaningful way in the Committee’s areas of competence.  Diverging vantage points should not stand in the way of the revised text’s approval, without a vote. 

Statements

ALON BAR (Israel) said he hoped that the Programme of Action from the United Nations conference on small arms would be a starting point for progress on that problem.  The best way to curb the illicit trade was through strong national commitments, supplemented by regional and international coordination.  States should bar all entities within their territories from trafficking in such arms and withhold assistance to those States that did not bar such trade.

Israeli law encompassed all aspects of the trade in firearms and was strictly enforced, he said.  Arms controls prohibited Israel from transporting arms to States under United Nations Security Council sanctions, criminals or terrorists.  Israeli exporters of arms must apply to the government for licenses to do so.  Israel invested in research and development for developing new equipment to detect the smuggling of small arms.

A regional response was necessary to strengthen the global efforts to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, he continued.  The illicit flow in small arms added to human suffering by putting deadly weapons in the hand of terrorists.  Terror was only viable if backed by States, so States were called upon to take steps to stop the flow of small arms from their territories to terrorists.  He viewed the Programme of Action as an important step in demonstrating the international commitment to stemming the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  Common interests would be best served by focusing on implementation of the Programme of Action.

SAAD MAANDI (Algeria), speaking about the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.44/Rev.1) said his country had co-sponsored it and wished to reaffirm its commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the promotion of a new era based on collective and universal security, with a decrease in those weapons.  He had fully supported the tireless efforts undertaken in the nuclear disarmament process, which remained the “priority of all priorities”.  Indeed, the positive results of 2000 NPT Review Conference, especially the commitment made by the nuclear Powers to totally eliminate their nuclear arsenals, should become a reality.

He said that the draft resolution before the Committee contained very relevant and practical measures, which could smooth the way towards achieving that noble objective.  The convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects, the creation of a special committee for the establishment of a staged programme for nuclear disarmament, and the start of negotiations on a treaty banning production of fissile materials for nuclear purposes -- those concrete proposals would give true impetus to the nuclear disarmament process.  He, therefore, supported the draft and called upon all delegations to do so, as well.

Ms. BADAWI (Egypt) said that the Programme of Action on small arms adopted by consensus at the United Nations Conference in July had reflected the international common position guiding the global work in that field.  The overwhelming majority of States had felt that all work in that field should be promptly bound by that agreement.  The draft resolution on the follow-up process (document A/C.1/56/L.47) was the only resolution dealing with that subject and guiding future work in that process.  The Committee had already adopted a resolution relating to the illicit small arms trade, which, regrettably, had contradicted the commitments undertaken in July.  Indeed, that precedent might jeopardize international work in that field and challenge the seriousness of the commitments, even before their implementation.

She reiterated her support for the agreed language of the Bamako Declaration, which had reflected the common African position, as well as that of the July Programme of Action.  Recently, she had refrained  from engaging the Committee in a procedural debate and formally submitting her amendments, or from reopening the “L.47 document”, thereby precluding further debate.

CLIVE PEARSON (New Zealand), speaking on behalf also of Australia and Mexico on the draft decision on the CTBT (document A/C.1/56/L.10/Rev.1) said he had worked actively with other signatory and ratifying States to achieve the Treaty’s entry into force.  In that regard, they welcomed the upcoming ministerial-level Conference to facilitate that goal.  Mindful of the preeminence of the Conference, the Committee’s objective was to achieve a consensus outcome of the draft text.  The goal was to simply inscribe the CTBT on next year’s agenda.  The draft decision, therefore, was a “very modest” initiative.  It had been amended, removing the reference to last year’s General Assembly resolution, in expectation that that could secure a consensus.

He said that the intentions of the draft decision were transparent and straightforward –- “no more, no less” -- and he urged its support.  The CTBT would contribute to international peace and security in “unmistakable” ways by creating an international norm prohibiting nuclear tests and any other nuclear explosions.  The Treaty would also make a real contribution to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and provide impetus to the process of their total elimination.  Ratifying the Treaty was a “critically” important step; three countries intended to table a resolution addressing that imperative at next year’s Committee session.

OSCAR LEON GONZALES (Cuba) said he would vote in favour of the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.44/Rev.1), as that was among the most complete nuclear disarmament texts.  It had emphasized the fundamental principles long ago agreed upon by the international community, namely that nuclear disarmament should be the greatest priority.  The text took up various proposals traditionally submitted by the Non-Aligned Movement of countries.  Nuclear weapons were the world’s greatest challenge in the disarmament and arms control field.  He firmly deplored the fact that the Conference on Disarmament, as the only multilateral negotiating body in the field, still had not been able to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate nuclear disarmament.

      Action on Texts

Speaking before the vote on the draft decision on the CTBT (document A/C.1/56/L.10/Rev.1), the representative of Canada said that he supported the draft decision, as a strong supporter of that landmark Treaty achievement of the Conference on Disarmament and as a measure essential to both non-proliferation and disarmament efforts.  His country had been very active in promoting the Treaty’s early operation and, therefore, had regretted that, in the week before the Conference designed to forward that goal, a purely procedural decision on the CTBT had had to be put to a vote.

The representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union had spared no effort towards the Treaty’s operation and universal accession.  It was firmly resolved to persevere in those efforts.  The Union had also fully endorsed the rapid establishment by the international community of the Treaty’s verification regime.  He called upon all States that had not yet done so to unconditionally accede to the Treaty.  The Union would support the draft decision before the Committee.

The draft on the CTBT (document A/C.1/56/L.10/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (For details see Annex I).

The representative of the United States said that he had asked for a vote on the decision because his country did not support the CTBT.  As delegations were aware, in October 1999, the United States Senate voted not to give its advice and consent to its ratification.  While the Administration had no plans to seek reconsideration of the Senate’s action, it intended to maintain its moratorium on nuclear testing, in effect since 1992, and urged all States to maintain such existing moratoriums.  The United States took seriously its obligations under arms control agreements to which it was a party.  He would reiterate and emphasize his country’s strong support for the NPT.  As a nuclear-weapon-State, it understood its special responsibility under article VI of that Treaty, concerning nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Norway said she attached the greatest importance to achieving universal adherence to the CTBT and its early entry into force, which was essential to the broader efforts to reduce and, eventually, eliminate nuclear weapons.  The upcoming Conference should facilitate that process.  She would vote in favour of the draft decision.

When the Committee took up the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.44/Rev.1), the representative of Pakistan said his country had remained committed to complete nuclear disarmament.  He had supported the draft, introduced by Myanmar together with other Non-Aligned Movement countries, but the present text had incorporated provisions in the sixth preambular paragraph, the final preambular paragraph, and operative paragraphs 6 and 9, which were inconsistent with his position.  He, therefore, would abstain in the vote.

A separate recorded vote was requested on Operative paragraph 9, which welcomes the positive outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference and the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States in the Final Document to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, under which all States parties are committed under article VI of the Treaty.  It also welcomes the reaffirmation by them that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the threat or use of those weapons.  Finally, it calls for the full and effective implementation of the steps set out in the Final Document. 

The representative of El Salvador said he wished to be added to the list of co-sponsors of the draft resolution.

The Committee approved operative paragraph 9 by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 6 abstentions (Cuba, France, Monaco, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex II).

The Committee then approved the draft resolution as a whole by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 35 against, with 19 abstentions (Annex III).

The representative of India said that, in view of its long-standing and unwavering commitment to nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons, globally, he had supported the draft in the past, but he was disappointed at the turn it had taken in recent years.  It had diluted a number of long-held Non-Aligned Movement and Group of 21 positions on nuclear disarmament, which his country fully supported.  Further, his views regarding the NPT were well known.  He, therefore, had called for and cast a negative vote on operative paragraph 9, while abstaining in the vote on the resolution as a whole.

The representative of China said he supported the objectives and main thrust of the draft, including the commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, the position against nuclear deterrence doctrines characterized by first-use, and the call for an unconditional commitment by nuclear-weapon States of non-first use, as well as the early commencement of negotiations of an internationally legally binding instrument against the use or threat of use against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones of those weapons.

He said that along with the draft’s contents, certain principles and measures were also essential towards realizing the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, including preservation of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty).  The countries with largest nuclear arsenals should continue to take the lead in drastically reducing the number of their nuclear weapons towards an improved international security environment, thereby making it possible for the other nuclear-weapon States to take part in the reduction process.  Transparency measures related to nuclear matters could only be implemented in an international environment of peace, security, stability and trust.  There were some deficiencies in the draft resolution.  While he had voted for it, he hoped that it could be further improved.

The representative of Japan said he had abstained in the vote.  It had remained, however, his fervent desire and firm belief that the use of nuclear weapons should not be repeated and continuous efforts should be made towards achieving a world free of those weapons.  The draft text had contained a number of positive elements concerning nuclear disarmament, including the correct reference to the NPT as a cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.  Nevertheless, it had not commanded the full support of his Government, which had made the difficult choice of abstaining in the vote.  The text still contained the element of a specified time frame for nuclear disarmament, whereas those steps should be “realistic” and “progressive” and involve all nuclear-weapon States from the very beginning of the process.  His delegation, therefore, had a somewhat different approach to the shared goal of eliminating those weapons.

The representative of Cuba, speaking before the vote, explained his position on the draft decision on a United Nations conference on eliminating nuclear dangers (document A/C.1/56/L.60).  He had been prepared to vote in favour of the draft resolution (document A/C.1/56/L.16), which was in line with the sentiments calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons that world leaders had expressed at the Millennium Summit.  The NPT regime was not the foundation for all efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.  The fact that there were still 30,000 nuclear weapons after 30 years showed the NPT that worked remained to be done.

It was imperative to discuss the issue of nuclear disarmament, he said.  The focus of the discussions should be the future.  He hoped a United Nations conference on eliminating nuclear dangers could be organized for discussions to take place.  An item on a United Nations conference on eliminating nuclear dangers should be included on the agenda of the General Assembly.

The Committee then approved the draft decision concerning a United Nations conference on eliminating nuclear dangers (document A/C.1/56/L.60) by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 7 against (France, Germany, Israel, Monaco, Poland, United Kingdom, United States) with 34 abstentions (Annex IV).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom, also on behalf of the United States and France said he was committed to NPT as the cornerstone and foundation of nuclear disarmament.  An approach that conflicted with the NPT, such as the one proposed in the draft decision, would not contribute to nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Germany said, like Mexico, Germany was concerned by the threat nuclear weapons posed to humanity.  He was dedicated to implementation of the NPT, which was the cornerstone of non-proliferation efforts.  He stressed importance of implementing of the 13 steps agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.  Progress made on those 13 steps would be important for the next review conference in 2005.  The deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament must be broken.  It was not appropriate to convene a United Nations conference on nuclear dangers at this juncture, so Germany could only vote against the draft decision.

The representative of Israel said his country had no basic objection to eliminating the dangers referred to in the text of the decision.  The politicized environment in which the decision had been passed continued the practice of singling out delegations, however, and led him to believe that the discussions at a conference to eliminate nuclear dangers would not be constructive.  He could not, therefore, vote in favour of the decision.

The Committee took up the draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.47).

The following delegations informed the Secretariat that they wished to become co-sponsors to the resolution:  Benin; Croatia; Cuba; El Salvador; United Kingdom; Russian Federation; Senegal; Madagascar; Mauritius; Monaco; Namibia; Niger; Nigeria; Côte d’Ivoire; Paraguay; and Haiti.

Speaking before action on the text, the representative of Pakistan noted the successful United Nations conference in the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons that had taken place in July 2001.  The Programme of Action adopted at the Conference was not perfect, but was still a significant step.  Efforts should now focus on implementation, because efforts to achieve more at the current stage could be counterproductive.  Pakistan was already implementing the Programme of Action.  Measures such as collecting small arms and banning the display of weapons were underway.  He was confident that those efforts would be productive.

The Committee then approved the resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.47) without a vote.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said that the United States was committed to countering the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  He was pleased with the measures in the Programme of Action adopted at the United Nations conference on small arms, because it included

measures such as those that encouraged States to put in place import/export controls, enforcement of embargoes concerning of arms transfers, and destruction of stockpiles of small arms.  The Programme of Action would form the core of a regime that would greatly mitigate damage caused by the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  The resolution would move implementation of the Programme of Action forward and that was why he supported it.

The United States was also committed to budgetary responsibility.  He believed that the Programme Budget Implications document for the resolution would require further discussion.  Because the substance of the resolution was so important, he had decided to join consensus and the document would be discussed in the Fifth Committee.

The Committee next approved a resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/56/L.29) without a vote.

The representative of Papua New Guinea said he would have voted in favour of the decision concerning a United Nations conference on eliminating nuclear dangers had he been present.

The representative of Japan spoke to explain that he was engaged in last minute consultations concerning the resolution on the path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/56/L.35/Rev.1).  He asked to be able to introduce orally a very small revision at the opening of the afternoon session.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

The draft decision on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/56/L.10/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to

1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, 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, 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, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstaining:  None.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Op Para 9/Nuclear Disarmament

Operative paragraph 9, concerning the 2000 NPT Review Conference, of the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.44/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 3 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, 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, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, 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, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Israel, Pakistan.

Abstaining:  Cuba, France, Monaco, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament

The draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.44/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 35 against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, 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, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Abstaining:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mauritius, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sweden, Ukraine.

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

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Conference on Nuclear Dangers

The draft decision on a United Nations Conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/56/L.60) was approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 7 against, with 34 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, 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, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, Germany, Israel, Monaco, Poland, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining:  Andorra, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, Yugoslavia.

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

* *** *