URGENT RATIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY CALLED FOR IN ONE OF NINE TEXTS APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

Fifty-seventh General Assembly

First Committee

17^th Meeting (AM)

URGENT RATIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY

CALLED FOR IN ONE OF NINE TEXTS APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

United States Votes against Draft;

Says Opposed to CTBT, Will Not Seek Reconsideration of Senate’s Rejection

Stressing that a universal and effectively verifiable Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was a fundamental instrument in the field of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, the General Assembly would stress the importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and without conditions, according to one of nine draft texts approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Other drafts were on the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and Middle East, assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, negotiations for a fissile material cut-off treaty, reducing nuclear danger, a convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, a conference on eliminating nuclear dangers, and follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on the CTBT by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, and Syria).  The text urged all States to remain seized of the matter at the "highest political level".  (For details of the vote see annex I).

Explaining his opposition to that text, the United States representative said his Government did not support the CTBT.  In October 1999, the United States Senate had voted not to give its advice and consent to ratification of that Treaty, and the Administration did not plan to seek reconsideration of that vote.  All States, meanwhile, must maintain their moratoriums on nuclear testing.

By a recorded vote of 148 in favour to 3 against, with 4 abstentions (annex V), the Committee approved a draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, by which the Assembly would express its determination to pursue the total elimination of nuclear weapons and call for the ratification of existing nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties in the regions of Latin America and the Caribbean, South Pacific, South-East Asia, Africa, and Antarctica.

Prior to approving the draft as a whole, the Committee took two separate votes.  The first was on the phrase "and South Asia" in operative paragraph      3, which called on States to consider relevant proposals for the establishment of such zones, including in the Middle East and South Asia.  The phrase was approved by a vote of 141 in favour to 2 against (India, Pakistan), with 8 abstentions (Cuba, France, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States)(annex III).

The Committee approved the third operative paragraph as a whole by a vote of 148 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with          4 abstentions (Israel, India, Russian Federation, Spain) (annex V).

A proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia had as much validity as proposals for such zones in East Asia, or Western Europe or North America, the representative of India asserted after approval of the text.  The contradiction in operative paragraph 3 was even starker when seen in the context of current realities.  Given those distortions and contradictions, he had voted against that paragraph and the phrase "and South Asia", and had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole.

Similarly, the representative of Pakistan said he had supported the objectives of the draft and voted in its favour, but he was perplexed by the call for the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia.  He had sought to promote that objective, unsuccessfully, for more than two decades, but, following the nuclear weapons explosions in his neighbourhood in 1998, the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia had become redundant. 

A draft resolution calling for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East was approved without a vote.  The representative of Israel said he had joined consensus on that text, as his country had for the past 20 years, notwithstanding substantive and important reservations to some of its elements.  Israel supported the eventual establishment of a verifiable zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as ballistic missiles.  But, the reality in the Middle East required a step-by-step approach that included peaceful relations, reconciliation and possible arms control measures.

Following up the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the Committee approved a draft resolution calling upon all States to commence multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention to prohibit the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and provide for their elimination.  The vote was 106 in favour to 30 against, with 22 abstentions (annex X).

Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, it voted to retain operative paragraph 1, which underlined the Court's unanimous opinion that there was an obligation to pursue and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective control.  That provision

(page 1b follows)

was approved by a vote of 146 in favour to 5 against (Afghanistan, France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with 5 abstentions (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Uganda, United Kingdom) (annex IX).

According to the terms of several related texts, the Assembly would:  reaffirm the urgent need to agree on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (98-0-54, annex VI); reiterate its request to the Conference to commence negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention (98-45-9, annex VII); call for a review of nuclear doctrines and immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons (96-45-15, annex VIII); and urge the Conference on Disarmament to begin immediately talks on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons (without a vote) 

Under a draft decision approved today, the Assembly it would decide to include the item on a United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament on the provisional agenda of its next session.  The text was approved by a vote of 111 in favour to 7 against (France, Germany, Israel, Monaco, Poland, United Kingdom, United States) with    37 abstentions (annex II).

Statements were also made by the representatives of Cuba, Syria, Colombia, Jordan, Germany, France, Spain, Republic of Korea, China, Japan and Belgium on behalf of several European countries. 

The First Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 22 October, to continue taking action on related draft resolutions and decisions.

Background

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

The third phase of work of the First Committee is divided into 10 clusters:  nuclear weapons; other weapons of mass destruction; outer space; conventional weapons; regional disarmament and security; confidence-building measures, including transparency in armaments; disarmament machinery; other disarmament measures; related measures of disarmament and international security; and international security.

Action was expected today on the following texts from cluster one:  the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); a United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament; the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East; a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere;

Also: effective assurances for non-nuclear-weapon-States; fissile material; the convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons; reducing nuclear danger; and the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

According to a draft resolution sponsored by Australia, Mexico and New Zealand entitled “Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (document A/C.1/57/L.4/Rev.1), the General Assembly would stress the importance and urgency of signing and ratifying the CTBT.

It would also urge States to maintain their moratoriums on nuclear weapons test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, pending the entry into force of the Treaty.  It would urge all States to remain seized of the issue at the highest political level.

Under a related term, the Assembly would urge all States that had not yet signed the Treaty to sign and ratify it as soon as possible while refraining from acts that would defeat its object and purpose.  With respect to States that had signed but not yet ratified the Treaty, in particular those whose ratification was needed for its entry into force, it would urge them to accelerate their ratification processes.

A draft decision sponsored by Mexico on a United Nations conference to identify ways of elimination of nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/57/L.19) would have the Assembly decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.

A draft text sponsored by Egypt on behalf of the Arab League on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/57/L.28) would have the Assembly urge all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of the proposal to establish such a zone, and, as a means of promoting that objective, would invite the countries concerned to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The Assembly would call upon all countries of the region that had not yet done so, pending the zone's establishment, to agree to place all their nuclear activities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.  It would invite the nuclear-weapon States and all others to render their assistance in establishing such a zone and, at the same time, to refrain from any action that ran counter to both the letter and spirit of the present text.

A draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/57/L.34) would have the Assembly, convinced of the importance role of nuclear-weapon-free zones in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and in extending the areas of the world that were nuclear-weapon-free, and with particular reference to the responsibilities of the nuclear-weapon States, call upon all States to support the process of nuclear disarmament and to work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.

The Assembly would welcome the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned, and call upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia. 

According to a draft resolution on the conclusion of effective arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.40), the Assembly would reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

In that connection, it would appeal to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and, in particular, on a common formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character.  It would recommend that further intensive efforts be devoted to the search for such a common approach or common formula and that various alternative approaches, including, in particular, those considered in the Conference on Disarmament, be further explored in order to overcome the difficulties.

The Assembly would also recommend that the Conference on Disarmament actively continue intensive negotiations with a view to reaching early agreement and concluding effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, taking into account the widespread support for the conclusion of an international convention and giving consideration to any other proposals designed to secure the same objective.

According to a draft resolution on the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/57/L.44), the Assembly would urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree on a programme of work that would include the immediate commencement of negotiations 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.

Under a draft resolution on a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.51), the Assembly would reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

By a draft resolution entitled “Reducing nuclear danger” (document A/C.1/57/L.52), the Assembly would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons.  It would request the five nuclear-weapon States to take measures towards the implementation of that provision.

It would also call upon Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.

A draft resolution entitled “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons” (document A/C.1/57/L.53) would have the Assembly recalling the Court's opinion of 8 August 1996, and underline once again the unanimous conclusion of the Court that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament under strict international control. 

The Assembly, would call, once again, upon all States to commence multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention to prohibit the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and provide for their elimination.

General Statement

RODOLFO ELISEO BENÍTEZ VERSÓN (Cuba) said his Government's decision to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was, above all, a sign of its clear political will to join that regime and reaffirm its commitment to nuclear disarmament.  Once its adherence came into force, Cuba would participate actively in the preparatory process leading to the next review of the Treaty in 2005.  Several draft resolutions in cluster 1 contained references to the NPT.  His delegation had traditionally abstained in the vote on those texts, but, following a case-by-case assessment of each text, it would generally vote in favour of them.  At the same time, Cuba's decision to accede to the NPT should not be interpreted as a change regarding the discriminatory gaps in that instrument.  Moreover, the nuclear Powers were not discharging their obligations under the NPT.

Action on Drafts

Turning to draft texts in cluster 1 on nuclear weapons, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/57/L.4/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against (the United States), with 4 abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, and Syria).  (See Annex I).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Syria said he abstained in the vote because a text on a Treaty as important and sensitive as the CTBT, and its obligations on all Member States, should not ignore the legitimate concerns of non-nuclear-weapon States.  Those countries had received no guarantees against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, nor had they had access to certain advanced technologies essential for their development.  Further, the text had not included an obligation of the nuclear Powers to eliminate their nuclear arsenals within a reasonable time frame, nor had it explicitly referred to the illegality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. 

He said that the text had referred to nuclear detonations, but it had not  referred to laboratory experiments or the qualitative upgrading of nuclear weapons.  The possible misuse by nations of the verification mechanism had also not been mentioned, and the text had ignored the right of a country to decide for itself whether or not to accede to that Treaty.  The tense situation in the Middle East was another reason for his abstention in that vote.  Israel was the only country in the region with nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, yet it had refused to adhere to the NPT and subject its nuclear facilities to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), thus impeding efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. 

The representative of Colombia said he had been obliged to abstain in the vote.  The Secretariat and Preparatory Commission of the CTBT were aware of the difficulties Colombia was having in ratifying that Treaty.  It would continue to seek a satisfactory arrangement with regard to that issue with the Secretariat for the CTBT, in order to give expression to its desire to ratify that major international instrument as early as possible.

The representative of Israel said his country signed the CTBT in September 1996 as a demonstration of its long-standing policy to support international efforts to prevent proliferation, taking into account the specific situation in the Middle East.  It had also played an active role in negotiating that Treaty in Geneva.  Since the establishment of the Preparatory Commission in November    1996, Israel had played a major part in developing the verification regime.  It decided to vote in favour of the draft resolution because of the importance it attached to the objectives of the CTBT, notwithstanding its reservation to some of the wording in operative paragraph 1, which stressed the importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and without conditions. 

He said Israel remained committed to the objectives of the CTBT, but had lamented that only moderate progress had been made on certain important issues, including completion of the verification regime.  That should be a robust system for protecting compliance, immune from abuse, and allowing each signatory to protect its State interests.  Meanwhile, several salient political issues remained unresolved, particularly those relating to the Middle East and South Asia.  Those problems were further compounded by the lack of acceptance of the CTBT by some States in the Middle East.  He was concerned with the negative dynamics evolving in his region, which were slowing the pace of development of certain aspects of the verification regime. 

The representative of Pakistan, speaking after the vote, said he supported the resolution on the CTBT, because he agreed with its objectives.  In 1996, his Government had voted in favour of the CTBT.  However, it had been obliged by self-defence and the desire to restore the strategic balance in South Asia to explore the possibility of nuclear capabilities.  With respect to operative paragraph    3, Pakistan had not been the first State in its region to test a nuclear device.  Additionally, it would not be the first to resume testing.  After May 1998, Pakistan had declared a unilateral moratorium on testing.  That moratorium would be maintained, unless there were major threats to the country’s security.  He said that Pakistan would not be the country to stand in the way of the entry into force of the CTBT.

The representative of Burkina Faso said had he been present he would have voted in favour of the CTBT text.

The representative of the United States, speaking after the vote, said he had voted against the draft resolution, because his Government did not support the CTBT.  He said that in October 1999, the United States Senate had voted not to give its advice and consent to ratification of the agreement.  The Administration did not plan to seek reconsideration of that vote.  He urged all States to maintain moratoriums on nuclear testing.  His Government took seriously the arms control agreements to which it was a party.  He supported the NPT strongly.  As a nuclear-weapon State, his Government understood its special responsibility as stated under article 6 of the NPT.

The representative of Egypt said he had not been present for the voting, but his Government had participated in the preparation of CTBT and reiterated its commitment to the entry into force of the Treaty.

The representative of Jordan said his Government strongly supported the draft.  He urged all States to sign and ratify the CTBT, particularly those      44 States whose accession was required for the Treaty to enter into force.

The representative of El Salvador regretted he had not been able to participate in the vote, since he had not possessed a copy of the draft text.  He said that he had not had a copy because his delegation was too small and had not been able to attend all of the First Committee’s meetings. He wanted his country’s vote to be recorded as positive.

The representatives of Guyana, Nicaragua, and Nigeria then said that had they been present during the voting, they would have voted in favour of the draft resolution.

The representative of Bangladesh said there was a slight error.  His delegation was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution, but his vote had not been recorded.  He said that his Government had ratified the CTBT and strongly supported the draft.

The representatives of Bhutan, Paraguay, Lesotho, Eritrea, Yemen, Honduras, Angola, Solomon Islands, Cape Verde, Georgia, Burundi, and Saudi Arabia all said that had they been present during the vote, they would have voted in favour of the draft resolution.

The Committee then approved the draft decision on a United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament (A/C.1/57/L.19) by recorded vote of 111 in favour to 7 against (France, Germany, Israel, Monaco, Poland, United Kingdom, United States ), with  37 abstentions (see Annex II).

The representative of Germany, speaking after the vote, said he sympathized with the urgency and disappointment at the slow pace of progress, which underlined the proposal to convene a United Nations conference.  He reaffirmed his determination to contribute to the implementation of article VI of the NPT, regarding nuclear disarmament.  That Treaty was a cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and an essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.  Full implementation of the 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts, as agreed upon at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, was essential to implementing article VI. 

He said that nothing should detract from the focused efforts required for States parties to fulfil their obligations in that regard.  In pursuit of those efforts, it was urgent to overcome the deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament, with a view to starting negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty as quickly as possible.  In light of those priorities, and with a view not to undermine the NPT process or the Conference on Disarmament, he had not considered it appropriate, at this time, to convene a United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament.  He, therefore, had not been in a position to support that decision. 

Also after the vote, the representative of France, speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom and the United States, said that, like Mexico and numerous other countries, those three States considered that the NPT was the cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation and the basis for nuclear disarmament.  They were convinced that the establishment of a parallel process would be in conflict with that approach.  For that reason, those countries had not thought that such a conference would contribute to the nuclear disarmament process.  Further, it was unlikely that future discussion during the Assembly's fifty-eighth session would prompt the three countries to change their decision.  

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/57/L.28).

Speaking after approval of that text, the representative of Israel said his delegation had joined the consensus, as it had done for the past 20 years, notwithstanding substantive and important reservations to some of its elements.  Israel had always maintained that the nuclear issues, as well as all regional security issues, should be dealt with within the full context of the peace process.  Israel supported the eventual establishment of a verifiable zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as ballistic missiles.  The reality in the Middle East, however, required a step-by-step approach that included peaceful relations, reconciliation and possible conventional and non-conventional arms control measures. 

That process could perhaps lead to more ambitious goals, such as the proposed nuclear-weapon-free zone, he said.  But, such a zone could not be established other than by the parties themselves.  Nor could it be established in a situation where some States maintained that they were in a state of war with each other.  There were continuing threats by "elements", in the region and beyond, against Israel's very existence.  That had had a critical impact on the region's ability to establish such a zone.  The region should be focused on the creation of a stable environment of peace and reconciliation.  Israel would do its utmost to achieve that goal and it called upon its neighbours to do the same.

Turning to the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/57/L.34), the Committee approved the phrase "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3 of the text, which calls upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia, by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to   2 against (India, Pakistan), with 8 abstentions (Cuba, France, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States) (see Annex III).

By a vote of 145 in favour to 1 against (India), with 8 abstentions (Israel, France, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States), the Committee approved the third operative paragraph (see Annex IV).

It then approved the draft as a whole by a vote of 148 in favour to 3 (France, United Kingdom, United States) against, with 4 abstentions (India, Israel, Russian Federation, Spain) (see Annex V).

Speaking after those votes, the representative of Spain said he fully supported the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in accordance with the established guidelines, and the text just approved was important to consolidate them.  Despite his overall support, however, he had reservations about operative paragraph 6 and had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole because that idea had not been mentioned in the Conference on Disarmament or in the established guidelines for the creation of such zones.  (Operative paragraph 6 considered that an international conference of States parties to the nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties might be held to support their common goals).

The representative of Pakistan said his country supported the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones freely arrived at among the States of the regions concerned.  He, therefore, supported the objectives of the draft resolution and voted in its favour, but he was somewhat perplexed that the draft, in operative paragraph 3, called for the creation of such a zone in South Asia.  He had sought to promote that objective, unsuccessfully, for more than two decades.  Following the nuclear weapons explosions in his neighbourhood in 1998, the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in south Asia had become redundant.  The mention of it in the text, therefore, completely contradicted the realities on the ground.  Still, his support for the draft as a whole reflected his overall sympathy for the creation of such zones where those could be freely agreed upon among concerned States.

The representative of India said that the proposal in the text ran counter to well-established principles.  The contradiction in operative paragraph 3 was even starker when seen in the context of current realities.  A proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia had as much validity as proposals for such zones in East Asia, or Western Europe or North America.  Given those distortions and contradictions, he had voted against that paragraph and the phrase "and South Asia", and had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole.

The United States representative, speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom and France, said that, as in previous years, they had opposed that text because it had not adequately responded to the essential problem and contained a fundamental ambiguity.  They were concerned about the draft's underlying idea, which was to prepare the ground for the southern hemisphere to become a nuclear-weapon-free zone.  Given that its entire land mass, except for a few small islands, was already included in existing zones, the sole area that remained to be covered was the high seas.  Some delegations had stated that was not the aim of the draft text, but if the new zone would not cover the high seas, what would it add to existing zones, he asked.

From that reflection, he said those countries were forced to conclude that, at least for some, the goal really was to create a new zone that would cover some international waters.  Such a step would be contrary to international law and be unacceptable to all delegations committed to respecting the law of the sea.  Their vote on the draft should not, in any way, be interpreted as calling into question their deep attachment to existing nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties, including Antarctica.  Likewise, they had no objection, in principle, to the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones that could contribute to regional and global security, provided they reflected the aspirations of all States of a region concerned. 

The Committee approved the draft resolution on effective assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States (document A/C.1/57/L.40) by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 0 against, with 54 abstentions (see annex VI).

The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking after the vote, said all non-nuclear-weapon States that had renounced the nuclear option and had acceded to the NPT had a legitimate claim to assurances from nuclear-weapon States.  He was concerned about legally binding international instruments that did not take into account the current global situation.  He also did not share the view that nuclear weapons had been pursued due to the absence of such legally binding instruments.  That was why he had abstained from the vote.  He called for universal adherence to the NPT and full compliance with the Treaty’s obligations.

The representative of Côte d’Ivoire, speaking after the vote, wanted his delegation to be added to the list of co-sponsors of the draft resolution.

The Committee turned next to the draft on fissile material (document A/C.1/57/L.44), which Argentina and Japan had joined as co-sponsors.  The draft was approved without a vote.

The representative of Israel, explaining his vote, said his Government had joined the consensus on the draft because its objectives coincided with the promotion of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  In practical terms, assessing the modalities of the draft resolution in question could not be done in isolation.  Rather, efforts to reduce tension and limit armaments had to be taken into account.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution entitled “Convention on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” (document A/C.1/57/L.51) by a recorded vote of   98 in favour to 45 against, with 9 abstentions (Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Ukraine) (see annex VII).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of China said his Government believed that the five nuclear-weapon-States should never be the first to use nuclear weapons.  Additionally, they should never use or threaten to use such weapons against any nuclear-weapon-free States or zones.  That was why he had voted in favour.

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/57/L.52).  It was approved by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 45 against, with 15 abstentions (see annex VIII).

Next, the Committee took up the draft on the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/57/L.53).

It voted first on operative paragraph 1, which underlined once again the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there existed an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.  It approved that paragraph by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 5 against (Afghanistan, France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with  5 abstentions (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Uganda, United Kingdom) (see annex IX).

By a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 30 against, with 22 abstentions, the Committee approved the draft resolution as a whole (see annex X).

The representative of Japan, speaking after the vote, wanted to explain her abstention.  She said she appreciated Malaysia’s commitment to nuclear disarmament and called for continued progress to be made towards the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world.  She also insisted that the immense destructive power of nuclear weapons should never be used against humanity again.  She stated that her Government supported the International Court of Justice and its call to conclude negotiations on disarmament, as well as concrete measures for disarmament.  However, it was premature for States to immediately fulfil obligations related to nuclear weapons, and practical steps must first be taken before the conclusion of negotiations, as called for by the draft.

Also speaking after the vote, the representative of Belgium, on behalf of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Norway and Poland, voiced support for the International Court of Justice’s opinion, namely the obligation to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.  That was why he had voted in favour of operative paragraph 1.  He could not, however, support the whole draft since it cited only one facet of the advisory opinion.  He insisted that the opinion must be considered in its total form.  He also stated that nuclear disarmament could only be achieved by a gradual process.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of El Salvador said he wanted to join as a co-sponsor to the following draft resolutions:  nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/57/L.34); effective assurances for non-nuclear-weapon-States (document A/C.1/57/L.40); the convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.51); and the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/57/L.53).

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on CTBT

The draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/L.4/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to    1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against:  United States.

Abstaining:  Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX I)

Annex II

Vote on UN Conference

The draft resolution on a United Nations Conference on ways to eliminate nuclear dangers in the context of disarmament (document A/C.1/57/L.19) was approved by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 7 against, with 37 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, 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, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, 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, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

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

Abstaining:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 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, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on “and South Asia”

The words “and South Asia” in operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/57/L.34) were approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour 2 against, with  8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, 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, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against:  India, Pakistan.

Abstaining:  Cuba, France, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Albania, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on OP Para 3 of Southern Hemisphere

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/57/L.34) was approved by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to 1 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 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, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against:  India.

Abstaining:  France, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Albania, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/57/L.34) was approved by a recorded vote of 148 in favour to 3 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 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, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining:  India, Israel, Russian Federation, Spain.

Absent:  Albania, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Guarantees against Nuclear-Weapon Use

The draft resolution on the conclusion of effective guarantees against the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.40) was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 0 against, with 54 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  None.

Abstaining:  Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Albania, Benin, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

ANNEX VII

Vote on Convention on Nuclear-Weapon Prohibition

The draft resolution on a Convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.51) was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 45 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, 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, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 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, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Abstaining:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Ukraine.

Absent:  Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Reducing Nuclear Danger

The draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/57/L.52) was approved by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 45 against, with 15 abstentions, as follows:

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

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

Abstaining:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, China, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine.

Absent:  Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX VIII)

ANNEX IX

Vote on OP Para 1 of ICJ

Operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution concerning the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.53) was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 5 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, 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, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

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

Abstaining:  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Uganda, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX IX)

ANNEX X

Vote on ICJ Nuclear Weapon Advisory Opinion

The draft resolution on the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.53) was approved by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 30 against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, 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, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

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

Abstaining:  Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.

* *** *