URGENCY OF EARLY ENTRY INTO FORCE OF NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY, STRESSED IN ONE OF 15 TEXTS APPROVED BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

16^th Meeting (AM)

URGENCY OF EARLY ENTRY INTO FORCE OF NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY, STRESSED

IN ONE OF 15 TEXTS APPROVED BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

Eight Drafts Require Recorded Vote

Reiterating that the cessation of nuclear-weapon tests were an effective nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation measure, the General Assembly would stress the importance and urgency of signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), without delay and conditions, to achieve the Treaty’s earliest entry into force, according to one of 15 drafts approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The draft resolution on the CTBT was approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria), as the Committee began its phase of action on all draft resolutions and decisions.  The Committee has organized its draft texts into subject “clusters” and this morning it approved many of the texts in its cluster concerning nuclear weapons, as well as clusters on other weapons of mass destruction and on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.  (For details of the vote, please see Annex IX).

Speaking after the vote on the CTBT draft, the Syrian representative said the Treaty did not include any commitment to protect the non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.  Also, that instrument confined itself to nuclear tests and did not mention the qualitative and quantitative development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.  Most striking was the right it granted to non-signatories to conduct verification and inspection in signatory States.  That ran counter to the United Nations Charter and violated the sovereign right of non-nuclear-weapon States.  Those major gaps in the Treaty’s text were of serious concern.

Explaining his negative vote, the United States’ representative said his delegation had already made clear that it did not support the CTBT and would not become a party to it.  Nevertheless, his Government intended to maintain its moratorium on nuclear testing, which had been in effect since 1992, and he urged other States to do the same.

Approval of a draft on assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States by a vote of 98 in favour, to none against, with 59 abstentions, would have the Assembly appeal to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on an international legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (See Annex III).

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the Republic of Korea said that, while all parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that had renounced the nuclear weapons option and had fully complied with it had a legitimate claim to those “negative security assurances” from nuclear-weapon States, those should not be automatically guaranteed to a State party.  Recent events had shown that States that had signed the NPT had then chosen not to fully comply with it.  Thus, the establishment of a legal binding arrangement on negative security assurances was premature.

Another nuclear weapons-related text, entitled “Reducing nuclear danger”, was approved by a recorded vote of 99 in favour, to 46 against, with 14 abstentions.  Considering that the hair-trigger alert of nuclear weapons carried unacceptable risks of unintentional or accidental use of those weapons, the text would have the Assembly call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons.  (See Annex IV).

The Assembly would affirm its conviction of the important 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, by a draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 146 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 9 abstentions (Albania, Bhutan, Federated States of Micronesia, Georgia, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Russian Federation, Spain) (Annex VIII).

Prior to its approval as a whole, a separate vote was taken on the last three words of operative paragraph 5 -– “and South Asia”.  That provision would have the Assembly call upon all States to consider all relevant proposals for the establishment of such zones, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia.

The Committee voted to retain that phrase by 142 in favour to 2 against (India, Pakistan) with 11 abstentions (Annex VI).  It approved operative paragraph 5 as a whole by 145 in favour to 1 against (India), with 11 abstentions (Annex VII).

The following additional drafts were also approved by recorded votes:  convening a United Nations conference on eliminating nuclear danger, 104 in favour, to 7 against (France, Germany, Israel, Monaco, Poland, United Kingdom, United States), with 40 abstentions (Annex I); missiles, 90 in favour, to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, and United States), with 59 abstentions (Annex II); a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, 102 in favour, to 46 against, with 10 abstentions (Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine) (Annex V); and prevention of an outer space arms race, 161 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States) (Annex X).

By several texts approved without a vote, the Assembly would:  welcome the fact that the Treaty of Tlatelolco was now in force in Latin America and the Caribbean; express grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States; decide to include the issue of the nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia on the agenda of its next session; and urge all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required to implement a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

Also:  urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree on a programme of work that included the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty; call on States to adhere to the Biological Weapons Convention; and urge all States parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention to meet in full and on time their obligations.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 28 October, to continue taking action on all draft texts.

Background

When the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to begin its third and final phase of work, namely action on all draft resolutions and decisions, it had before it texts related to nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, outer space and conventional weapons. 

Expected to be acted on under cluster I, which concerns nuclear weapons, are drafts on:  United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament; missiles; consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco). 

Also:  assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; dumping of radioactive waste; nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia; nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East; reducing nuclear danger; convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons; nuclear-weapon-free zone in the southern hemisphere; fissile material negotiations; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). 

Action is also expected on cluster 2 drafts, which concern other weapons of mass destruction, namely on the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.  On cluster 3, outer space, action is expected on the draft resolution on prevention of an outer space arms race.  The Committee is also expected to take up a draft in cluster 4, which concerns conventional weapons, namely, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 

Draft Summaries

Cluster I

By a draft decision sponsored by Mexico on a United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.2), the Assembly would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-ninth session an item dealing with such a conference. 

According to a draft resolution sponsored by Egypt, Indonesia, and Iran on missiles (document A/C.1/58/L.4), the Assembly, convinced of the need for a comprehensive, balanced, and non-discriminatory approach towards missiles, as a contribution to international peace and security, and underlining the complexities involved in considering the issue, would take note of the Secretary-General’s relevant report and request him to seek Member States’ views on the matter. 

According to a draft resolution on consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) (document A/C.1/58/L.6), the Assembly would welcome the fact that the Treaty was now in force for the sovereign States of the region and that that would be officially acknowledged by the XVIII General Conference of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin American (OPANAL), to be held in Havana, Cuba, on 5 and 6 November.  The draft would urge the countries of the region that had not yet done so to ratify the Treaty’s amendments, which were approved by the General Conference. 

[The preambular portion of the draft resolutions recalls that in 1990, 1991 and 1992, the General Conference of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean approved and opened for signature a set of amendments to the Treaty, with the aim of enabling its full entry into force.] 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela. 

Convinced that nuclear weapons posed the greatest threat to mankind and to the survival of civilization, the General 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, according to a draft resolution on that question (document A/C.1/58/L.8).  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. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. 

According to a draft resolution sponsored by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of African States, on the prohibition of dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/58/L.12), the Assembly would express grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States. 

It would also call upon all States to take appropriate measures with a view to preventing any dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes that would infringe upon the sovereignty of States. 

By a further term, it would appeal to all Member States that had not yet taken the necessary steps to become party to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management to do so as soon as possible. 

By the terms of a draft decision sponsored by Uzbekistan on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/58/L.14), the Assembly would decide to include the item on the agenda of its next session.

The Assembly, according to a draft resolution sponsored by Egypt on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.22) would urge all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required to implement that proposal, and, as a means of promoting that objective, invite the countries concerned to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). 

It would call on the countries of the region that had not done so, pending the establishment of the zone, to agree to place all their nuclear activities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.  It would note the importance of the ongoing bilateral Middle East peace negotiations and the activities of the multilateral Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security in promoting mutual confidence and security in the Middle East, including the establishment of the zone. 

Considering that the hair-trigger alert of nuclear weapons carried unacceptable risks of unintentional or accidental use of nuclear weapons, which would have catastrophic consequences for all mankind, the General Assembly would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons, by a text entitled “Reducing nuclear danger” (document A/C.1/58/L.34). 

The Assembly would request the five nuclear-weapon States to take measures towards implementation of that provision and call upon all 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. 

The Secretary-General would be requested, among other things, to intensify efforts and support initiatives that would contribute towards the full implementation of the seven recommendations identified in the report of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters (document A/56/400) that would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear war. 

[Those recommendations are:  de-alerting nuclear weapons; review of nuclear doctrines; further reduction of tactical nuclear weapons as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process; enhancing security at a global and a regional level by promoting increased transparency of all nuclear weapons programmes; and creating a climate for implementing nuclear disarmament measures.] 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Cuba, Haiti, India, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Namibia, Nauru, Solomon Islands, Sudan and Zambia. 

Convinced that a multilateral, universal and binding agreement prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would contribute to the elimination of the nuclear threat, the Assembly would reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations, in order to reach agreement on such a convention, according to another draft resolution on a nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/58/L.36). 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Namibia, Nepal, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Viet Nam and Zambia. 

According to a draft resolution sponsored by Brazil on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38), the Assembly would affirm its conviction of the important 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.  With particular reference to the responsibilities of the nuclear-weapon States, it would call on all States to support the nuclear disarmament process and work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons. 

It would welcome the continued contribution that the Antarctic Treaty and the Treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba were making towards freeing the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas covered by those Treaties from nuclear weapons.  It would call upon all concerned States to work together, in order to facilitate adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free zone Treaties by all relevant States that had not yet done so. 

A draft resolution on the Conference on Disarmament decision to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate a non-discriminatory, multilateral, internationally verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.49) would have the Assembly urge the Conference to agree on a programme of work that includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty, under the conviction that such a treaty would be a significant contribution to nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. 

According to a draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/58/L.52), the Assembly, reiterating that the cessation of nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions constituted an effective nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation measure, would stress the importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and conditions, to achieve the Treaty’s earliest entry into force. 

In that context, it would urge all States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as possible and refrain from acts that would defeat its object and purpose in the meanwhile. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia. 

Cluster 2

According to a draft resolution sponsored by Hungary on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) And Toxin Weapons and On Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention) (document A/C.1/58/L.37), the Assembly would note with satisfaction the increase in the number of States parties to the Convention and reaffirm its cal on all signatories that had not yet ratified it to do so without delay.  It would call on those States that had not yet signed the Convention to become parties to it at an early date, thus contributing to its universal adherence. 

The Assembly would recall the decision reached at the Fifth Review Conference and call on the States parties to the Convention to participate in its implementation. 

[Among the decisions and recommendations of the Fifth Review Conference, which was held in Geneva from 19 November to 7 December 2001 and 11 to 22 November 2002, were:  the adoption of necessary national measures to implement the prohibitions set forth in the Convention; national mechanisms to establish and maintain the security and oversight of pathogenic microorganisms and toxins; enhancing international capabilities for responding to, investigating and mitigating the effects of cases of alleged use of biological or toxin weapons or suspicious outbreaks of disease; strengthening and broadening national and international efforts and existing mechanisms for the surveillance, detection, diagnosis and combating of infectious disease affecting humans, animals, and plants; and the content, promulgation, and adoption of codes of conduct for scientists.] 

Under the terms of a draft resolution submitted by Poland on implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/58/L.41), the Assembly would underline that the Convention and its implementation contributed to enhancing international peace and security.  It would emphasize that its full, universal and effective implementation would further contribute to that purpose by excluding completely, for the sake of all humankind, the possibility of the use of chemical weapons. 

The Assembly would stress the importance to the Convention that all possessors of chemical weapons, chemical weapons production facilities or chemical weapons development facilities, including previously declared possessor States, should be among the States parties to the Convention, and welcomed progress to that end. 

It would urge all States parties to the Convention to meet in full and on time their obligations and to support the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in its implementation activities. 

Cluster 3

According to the draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/58/L.44), the Assembly, recognizing that the prevention of an outer space arms race would avert a grave danger for international peace and security, would reaffirm the importance and urgency of preventing such an arms race and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective. 

The Assembly would reaffirm its recognition that the legal regime applicable to outer space did not, in and of itself, guarantee the prevention of an outer space arms race, that the regime played a significant role in the prevention of an arms race in that environment, that there was a need to consolidate and reinforce that regime and enhance its effectiveness and that it was important to comply strictly with existing agreements, both bilateral and multilateral. 

It would call on all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the peaceful use of outer space and of the prevention of an arms race there and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to the relevant existing treaties in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation. 

The Conference on Disarmament would be invited to establish an ad hoc committee as early as possible during its 2004 session. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Uruguay, Yemen and Zambia. 

Cluster 4

According to a draft on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (document A/C.1/58/L.50) (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), the Assembly would call upon all States that had not yet done so to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention, its annexed protocols, and the amendment of article I, which extends the Convention’s scope. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 

(Additional co-sponsors from draft resolutions and decisions submitted last week were:  the illicit small arms trade (L.1), Bangladesh, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Somalia, Cambodia, Ecuador, Jamaica, Jordan, Russian Federation, Austria, Bolivia, Grenada, Latvia, Mongolia, Republic of Moldova, Bhutan, Burundi, Estonia, Guyana, Hungary, India, Madagascar, Sri Lanka; Treaty of Tlatelolco (L.6), Nauru; assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States (L.8), Bangladesh, El Salvador, Republic of Korea, Syria, Mali; regional disarmament (L.9), Turkey, Indonesia, Belarus, Mali; conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (L.10), Italy, Belarus.

Also:  Treaty of Pelindaba (L.11), Congo, Mali, Nauru; dumping radioactive waste (L.12), Congo, Mali; Regional Centre in Africa (L.13), Congo, Mali; national legislation on arms transfers (L.16), Ukraine, Mali; peace consolidation through practical disarmament (L.17), Bangladesh, Cameroon, Republic of Moldova; conference of nuclear-weapon-free zone countries (L.19), Congo; Regional Centre in Asia and the Pacific (L. 21), Japan, Republic of Korea, Fiji, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Cambodia, Nauru; Indian Ocean as a zone of peace (L.24), Nauru; fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (L.25), Bangladesh.

Additionally:  multilateralism (L.26), Bangladesh, Congo; environmental norms (L.27), Bangladesh, Congo; regional centres (L.28), Bangladesh; disarmament and development (L.29), Bangladesh; follow-up to the International Court of Justice opinion on the threat or use of nuclear weapons (L.31), Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Fiji, Nigeria, Niger; objective information and transparency on military expenditures (L.32), Republic of Moldova, Nauru; role of science and technology (L.33), Bangladesh; reducing nuclear danger (L.34), Bangladesh; preventing the terrorist acquisition of mass destruction weapons (L. 35), Armenia, Myanmar; convention on the prohibition of use of nuclear weapons (L.36), Myanmar; nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (L.38), Bangladesh, Cameroon, Fiji, New Zealand, Togo, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Thailand, Bahamas, Indonesia.

Also:  reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons (L.39), Costa Rica, Paraguay; towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: a new agenda (L.40), Costa Rica, Austria, Paraguay; Chemical Weapons Convention (L.41), Bangladesh, El Salvador; security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (L.42), Austria; Ottawa Convention (L. 43), Cameroon, Monaco, Saint Lucia, Somalia, Yemen, Albania, Belize, Cape Verde, Chad, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ghana, Bosnia and Herzegovina; preventing an arms race in outer space (L.44), El Salvador, Syria; transparency in armaments (L.45), Republic of Korea, Thailand, Republic of Moldova, Ghana; regional promotion in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe of the United Nations programme of action on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (L.46), Armenia, Burkina Faso, Afghanistan, Norway, Russian Federation, San Marino, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, Niger, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In addition:  verification (L.48), Nauru; treaty banning fissile material for nuclear weapons (L. 49), Bangladesh, Cameroon, Mongolia; Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (L.50), Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, India, Mali; assistance to States to curb illicit small arms trade (L. 51), Cameroon, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Spain, Andorra, Slovakia, Switzerland; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (L. 52), Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Romania, Ukraine; and path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (L. 53), Bangladesh, Tuvalu, Afghanistan.)

General Statements

CARLO TREZZA (Italy) speaking on behalf of the European Union on the draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/58/L.52) said that, during the general debate, he had expressed the Union’s view on the CTBT, underlining that it had spared no efforts in promoting its early entry into force and early accession.  He drew attention to the conference recently held in Vienna to facilitate the Treaty’s operation, and said that the Union had carried out demarches in 74 countries.  It welcomed ratification before that conference by Algeria, as an “Annex 2” State, whose ratification was specifically required for the Treaty’s entry into force.

He said that the Union continued to call on all States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the CTBT, without delay and without conditions, especially those that were required for its operation.  He expressed the Union’s full support for the rapid establishment of the verification regime in all its elements.  That was why it fully supported the draft resolution before the Committee, which had been co- sponsored by all European Union member States.

YURY GALA (Cuba), speaking about cluster 1 on nuclear weapons, said that several drafts had referred to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Treaty of Tlatelolco.  In that regard, he reaffirmed that, during the past year, his Government had taken additional measures in direct response to its decision to swiftly honour all of its obligations as a party to those treaties.  Thus, on 18 September, his Government signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Additional Protocol to that agreement.  Ratification of the Tlatelolco Treaty had enabled that international instrument to fully enter into force and had enabled the consolidation of the first zone entirely exempt from nuclear weapons, in a densely populated area.  That would be officially recognized by the Treaty’s General Conference, to be held in Havana on 5 and 6 November, which was further evidence of Cuba’s attachment to peace, disarmament and multilateralism.

Regarding the texts in the first cluster, he reasserted that he would vote on the basis of the balance appearing in the various drafts, flowing from the premise that the achievement of general and complete disarmament was a priority.

Action on texts

Speaking before the vote, the representative of Israel said his delegation would join the consensus on the draft resolution concerning the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.22), as it had done for over 20 years.  Nevertheless, he expressed certain reservations.  For example, he maintained that any policies towards weapons should be made within the context of the peace process.  Additionally, while supporting a region free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, as well as ballistic missiles, the political realities there mandated a practical approach featuring confidence-building and conventional and non-conventional arms control measures.

Stressing that nuclear-weapon-free zones should be based on agreements that were freely arrived at by all States involved, he emphasized that such an agreement could only come into being after all States in the region had recognized each other and established peaceful relations.  It could not be attained when States were officially at war with each other.  Unlike the environments governing other nuclear-weapon-free zones in the world, the Middle East was characterized by continuing threats against one State, namely Israel.

Regarding the draft resolution on fissile material (document A/C.1/58/L.49), he said his delegation would join the consensus because the objective of a treaty governing such material was a positive one.  He added again, however, that the non-compliance of States with their international obligations, coupled with their tendencies to disseminate arms-related capabilities, represented serious concerns.

Turning to the draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/58/L.52), he said the fact that his country had signed the Treaty demonstrated its support of the international community’s efforts to prevent proliferation.  He added that Israel had played an active role in negotiating the Treaty and contributed to its drafting.  Therefore, he would vote in favour of the draft, despite concerns with wording in operative paragraph 1, which would have the Assembly stress the importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the Treaty’s earliest entry into force.  After all, progress still had to be made on issues such as the readiness of the verification regime, fortified by a robust system to detect non-compliance.  Also, several political issues remained unresolved in the Middle East, in part because several States in the region had not accepted the CTBT.

The representative of the United States, regarding the drafts on the nuclear-weapon-free zones, on which votes would soon begin, said he wished to make clear his country’s approach to such drafts.  The United States recognized that strong international support existed for nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties and protocols and appreciated the value States placed on them, as a way of promoting non-proliferation and regional security interests.  The United States considered those drafts the same way it considered the treaties themselves, namely, on a case-by-case basis.  He had not expected that his vote would change in any of those drafts at this session.  At the same time, his Government had not yet reviewed its position on protocols, which it had signed, but not yet ratified.

Explaining his vote on the draft on a fissile material cut-off treaty (document A/C.1/58/L.49), on which the Committee was expected to act today, he said the text urged the Conference on Disarmament to agree on a programme of work that included the immediate commencement of talks on such a treaty.  He would again join consensus on that draft because it supported a fissile material cut-off treaty, which advanced the United States’ security interest.  The United States, however, was reviewing specific elements of its policy regarding such a treaty, and joining consensus on that draft was without prejudice to the outcome of that review.

Speaking again on behalf of the European Union on the draft on missiles (document A/C.1/58/L.4), the representative of Italy said the Union would abstain in that vote, as it had last year.  That abstention must not be regarded as a lack of commitment on that issue.  Reference to the threat of ballistic missiles was contained in the declaration on the NPT made by the European Union heads of State and government on 20 June, which stated that weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation put at risk the security of those States, peoples and interests in the world.  He welcomed the international code of conduct against the proliferation of ballistic missiles, which had been launched successfully in 2002 in The Hague and subscribed to by 109 States. 

He said that the Code was an initial, but essential step to addressing the problem of missile proliferation without precluding other initiatives or more comprehensive approaches. It established a multilateral framework and principles for cooperation, to which all States should adhere.  The relationship between the Code and the United Nations should be established.  That code was the most concrete initiative in the fight against ballistic missile proliferation and offered the best chances, leading to tangible results in the short-term.  Unfortunately, the draft resolution made no specific reference to the Code.  Also, the Union was not convinced that the establishment of another panel was an efficient next step.  Any further panel would only be meaningful on the basis of an agreed specific mandate.  Thus, the Union was not in a position to support the draft this year.

The draft decision on a United Nations conference on eliminating nuclear danger (document A/C.1/58/L.2) was approved with a recorded vote of 104 in favour, to 7 against (France, Germany, Israel, Monaco, Poland, United Kingdom, United States), with 40 abstentions (Annex I).

The draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/58/L.4) was approved with a recorded vote of 90 in favour, to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States), with 59 abstentions (Annex II).

The draft resolution on the Treaty of Tlatelolco (document A/C.1/58/L.6) was approved without a vote. 

The draft resolution on assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States (document A/C.1/58/L.8) was approved with a recorded vote of 98 in favour, to none against, with 59 abstentions.  (Annex III)

The draft resolution on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive waste (document A/C.1/58/L.12) was approved without a vote. 

The draft decision on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/58/L.14) was also approved without a vote. 

The draft resolution on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.22) was approved without a vote. 

By a recorded vote of 99 in favour, to 46 against, with 14 abstentions, the draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/58/L.34) was approved (Annex IV).

The draft resolution on the convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.36) was approved by a recorded vote of 102 in favour to 46 against, with 10 abstentions (Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine) (Annex V).

In a separate vote on the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38), the last three words of operative paragraph 5, which read “and South Asia”, were approved by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to 2 against (India, Pakistan), with 11 abstentions (Annex VI).

Operative paragraph 5 as a whole -- which would have the Assembly 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 -- was approved by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to one against (India), with 11 abstentions (Annex VII).

The text as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 9 abstentions (Albania, Bhutan, Federated States of Micronesia, Georgia, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Russian Federation, Spain) (Annex VIII).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution on a fissile material cut-off treaty (document A/C.1/58/L.49). 

Next, the draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/58/L.52) was approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to one against (United States), with 4 abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria) (Annex IX).

Speaking in explanation of position on previous votes in cluster 1, the representative of the Republic of Korea said that, given the complexity of the missiles issues, a step-by-step approach was needed towards a concrete agreement.  He had expressed his concern about the objectives and unfocused approach of the draft text, which sought to address the issue in all its aspects.  With that concern in mind, his Government had participated in the expert panel from 2001 to 2002, but due to the objective and scope of the panel’s mandate and the broadness of issues, the panel failed to make concrete gains.

Noting that the draft called again for the establishment of a panel, also with unfocused mandate, he said he had been unable to support it.  The international community should build on what had already been achieved, and not underestimate or undercut the valuable contribution made by The Hague Code of Conduct.  The draft failed to aptly reflect the principles contained therein.  He, therefore, had abstained in the vote.

Concerning the draft on effective security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States (document A/C.1/58/L.8), he said that all such parties to the NPT, which had renounced the nuclear weapons option and had fully complied with that Treaty, had a legitimate claim to credible negative security assurances from nuclear-weapon States.  But, those should not be automatically guaranteed to a State party just because it adhered to the NPT.  Recent events had shown that there were States that had signed non-proliferation treaties and then chose not to fully comply with them.  Thus, the establishment a legal binding arrangement on negative security assurances was premature.  For that reason, he had abstained from the vote. 

Speaking on the votes on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38), the representative of India said that the proposal contained in the fifth operative paragraph, including the last three words, ran counter to the well-established principles for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, which must be established on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States of a region where such zones were desired.  The contradiction in operative paragraph 5 was even starker when seen in the context of the current realities.  The proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia, logically, had no more validity than in East Asia, West Europe or North America. 

Given those contradictions, he said he had voted against that paragraph, as well as against the retention of the last three words, and had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole.

Concerning the draft on the dumping of radioactive waste (document A/C/1/58/L.12), he said he had fully supported the central objective of that text and had joined consensus.  His was among a group of a few countries that had supported a discussion on radiological weapons in the Conference on Disarmament, in the view that the international community must remain alert to the dangers posed by such waste or the use of those weapons by terrorists. 

He said that the draft had referred to the 1997 Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.  As a developing country, India placed high importance on the safety and full utilization of the fuel cycle and felt that spent fuel, therefore, was not a waste, but a valuable resource, which was a position he consistently supported in the IAEA.

The representative of Colombia said that, once again, he must refrain from the vote on the draft on the CTBT, despite his country’s traditional commitment to nuclear weapons control, inspection and supervision.  The secretariat of the CTBT and the CTBT Organization (CTBTO) were aware of the constitutional difficulties Colombia faced in ratifying that Treaty.  Its arguments had been aired publicly and transparently over the last three years.  During the September conference in Vienna, Colombia had reaffirmed its commitment to the Treaty and proposed that those constitutional difficulties be overcome before it ratified the Treaty.  He welcomed the interest of several countries to assist in finding a solution to those impediments, thereby making it possible for Colombia to ratify the text, as soon as possible, which was its desire. 

Speaking on the draft on a conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers (document A/C.1/58/L.2), the representative of Germany said that, like Mexico, he was sympathetic to the sense of urgency and the disappointment at the slow pace of progress, which underlined the proposal for such a conference.  He reaffirmed his determination to contribute to implementation of article VI of the NPT.  He particularly stressed the need to implement the 13 practical steps towards nuclear disarmament.  Their implementation required focused efforts; nothing should detract from the obligation of the parties to the NPT. 

Thus, he said he considered the pursuit of those efforts, in the context of the NPT preparatory process leading to the 2005 Review Conference, to be of key importance.  It was of the utmost urgency to overcome the deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament.  Linkages, which had led to that deadlock, should be abandoned, with a view to starting talks on a fissile material cut-off treaty.  It was not appropriate, at this juncture, 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.

Explaining her position on the draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/58/L.4), the representative of Japan said that the proliferation of missiles as delivery vehicles for weapons of mass destruction was a matter of grave concern for Japan, as that threatened security, both globally and regionally.  Her country, therefore, had striven to reduce that threat, including through participation in the discussion of the expert panel.  She had not supported the draft, however, and had abstained in the vote because it contained no explicit reference to the concern of missiles as delivery vehicles of weapons of mass destruction.  Nor had it acknowledged such efforts as The Hague Code of Conduct, in which her country participated.  Regardless of her vote, she remained committed to the goal of ensuring the non-proliferation of such missiles.

The representative of Syria, speaking on the draft on the CTBT, said that his country had repeatedly reaffirmed that such an important treaty required the utmost attention, particularly in view of the binding responsibility it placed on the shoulders of all Member States.  The majority of countries, which were non-nuclear-weapon States, deserved to receive assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.  Those States had not been allowed to obtain advanced technology that would expedite development and progress.  The important observations made so far on the Treaty had all conceded that its text had not included any commitment towards the non-nuclear-weapon States regarding the use or threat of use of such weapons against them.  That did not help add a global aspect to the Treaty and hindered its ratification. 

Also, he added, the text was confined to nuclear tests and did not mention the qualitative and quantitative development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.  It had also concluded that on-site verification might open the door to abuse of those rules against certain national regimes and intransigence in the application of those rules.  What was most striking in the text was that it gave the right to non-signatories to conduct verification and inspection in signatory States.  That ran counter to the United Nations Charter and violated the sovereign right of non-nuclear-weapon States.  Those major gaps in the Treaty’s text were of serious concern. 

In view of the explosive situation in the Middle East, he recalled that Israel unilaterally possessed nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction, and was working to develop those, qualitatively and quantitatively.  It had also refused to accede to the NPT or to subject its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards.  All of that had hindered the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and had exposed the region and the entire world to the threats of Israel’s nuclear weapons, without any adequate response.

Speaking in explanation of his vote, the representative of the United States said he had abstained on the draft resolution on assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States (document A/C.1/58/L.8) because his Government continued to oppose any proposal for a global, legally binding security regime.  Regarding the draft on the CTBT (document A/C.1/58/L.52), he had voted against it because, as his delegation had made clear before, it did not support the Treaty, and would not become a party to it.  Nevertheless, his Government intended to maintain its moratorium on nuclear testing, which had been in effect since 1992, and he urged other States to do the same.

The representative of Cuba said he had voted in favour of the draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/58/L.4).  Expressing support for the Secretary-General’s report on the topic, he, nevertheless, said that, in the future, instead of focusing on descriptions, the report should contain recommendations on how to deal with problems directly related to the preservation of international peace and security.  Noting with satisfaction that the draft would have the relevant Panel of Governmental Experts be set up on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, he maintained that the United Nations was the right multilateral forum to deal with missiles.  However, he stressed that the international community should not only focus on the military aspects of missiles, but also on how they could be peacefully used to explore outer space.

He added that he was opposed to disarmament measures focused on non-proliferation solely, and declared that vertical, as well as horizontal proliferation, should be addressed.  Expressing hope that the Group of Experts would emphasize measures to prevent the proliferation of not only ballistic missiles, which could carry biological and chemical weapons, but also high precision cruise missiles, which could be armed with conventional warheads, he suggested that the Group take into account the replies of Member States contained in the Secretary-General’s report.

Explaining his vote on the draft resolution concerning a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38), the representative of Pakistan said he supported nuclear-weapon-free zones based on agreements that were freely arrived at by the involved States.  That was why he had voted in favour of the draft.  However, the call for the creation of such a zone in South Asia, as stated in operative paragraph 5, did not take into account the reality on the ground.  He reminded delegates that, despite resisting the possession of nuclear weapons for over two decades, Pakistan had decided to acquire them only after the 1998 nuclear explosions “in its neighbourhood”.  Thus, since the last three words did not reflect reality, he had voted against them, and abstained from the paragraph as a whole.

Regarding the draft on the CTBT (document A/C.1/58/L.52), he said he had voted in favour.  Declaring that his country had always supported the Treaty, he reminded delegates that it had been forced to demonstrate nuclear capability out of self-defence and in order to restore strategic balance to South Asia.  Adding that Pakistan had not been the first country in the subregion to conduct nuclear tests, he stressed that it would similarly not be the first to resume testing.  In fact, it would maintain its moratorium on such testing until the Treaty’s entry into force, as long as no development in the region challenged such a ban.  In short, Pakistan would not be the one to stand in the way of the CTBT’s entry into force.

The representative of Spain said he supported nuclear-weapon-free zones based on agreements that were freely arrived at by States.  However, he had abstained from the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38) because of operative paragraph 8, which would have the General Assembly consider that an international conference of States parties and signatories to the nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties might be held to support those treaties’ common goals.  Expressing concern over the concept of such a conference not being mentioned at any time in the Conference on Disarmament, nor in the final document of the last NPT Review Conference, he maintained that the work already done, with respect to the zones, was sufficient and did not need to be supplemented by yet another conference.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking also on behalf of France and the United States, noted that the three delegations had voted against the draft on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38), as they had done last year.  That was, in part, because of the draft’s last preambular paragraph, which would have the Assembly recall the applicable principles and rules of international law relating to the freedom of the high seas and the rights of passage through maritime space, including those of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Welcoming that paragraph, he, nevertheless, wondered what value the draft would add if it did not affect the “freedom of the high seas”.  After all, the southern hemisphere consisted mainly of the “high seas”.  In short, he wanted to know what the ambiguous draft’s real objective was.  Other than that concern, he stated that he had no objections to new nuclear-weapon-free zones, provided they were based on freely-arrived-at agreements.

The representative of Australia said he had abstained from the draft on missiles (document A/C.1/58/L.4) because the text failed to highlight the importance of the proliferation of ballistic missiles, which were the prime vehicle for weapons of mass destruction.  He also regretted that the draft excluded references to the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, also known as The Hague Code of Conduct, which was launched in 2002 and subscribed to by 109 States.  Because the Code represented a notable step forward, dedicated to inclusiveness and transparency, it required proper attention.

The representative of Lao People’s Democratic Republic corrected his vote on the draft on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38).  With respect to the votes on operative paragraph 5 as a whole, and the paragraph’s last three words, he wished his delegation’s vote to be recorded as neither “for”, nor “against”, nor “abstention”.  Instead, he wanted it labeled as “no action”.  As for the draft as a whole, he had voted in favour.

Proceeding to action on the two draft resolutions contained in cluster 2, other weapons of mass destruction, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the Biological Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/58/L.37) and on the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/58/L.41).

Speaking after the vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention, the representative of Pakistan said he had supported the draft.  As a party to that instrument and a member of the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), he underlined the importance of the Convention and underscored the need for the early destruction of chemical weapons by certain States, which, even after adhering to the Convention, had not declared the destruction of their chemical weapons.

The representative of New Zealand, also speaking on behalf of Canada, said he had supported the draft on the Biological Weapons Convention.  Operative paragraph 3 referred to agreement reached at the Fifth Review Conference that States would promote common understanding and effective action on two topics -– national implementation and oversight.  The task for States parties, therefore, was not only for them to participate in implementing that agreement, as called for in the third operative paragraph, but to promote common understanding and effective action.  Operative paragraph 3 did not quote the provision in its entirety and should not diminish the obligations of States in that regard.

Speaking on the draft on the Chemical Weapons Convention, the representative of Egypt said his country, in line with the principles set forth in the Convention, believed it should be universal.  Its implementation should run parallel with that of the NPT, as both of those embodied a vital issue for the Middle East.  He regretted that the draft contained certain adjectives, which were contrary to the text on that subject tabled last year.  Those terms affected the balance of the text, in its totality.  Despite that, however, and in order not to disturb consensus, he had decided not to press for a recorded vote.

Then, the Committee proceeded to action on the draft on prevention of an outer space arms race (document A/C.1/58.L.44). 

Speaking on a point of order before the announcement of the results of the voting, the representative of France asked the Chairman to reread the list of co-sponsors.

The Chairman read out the list as corrected by the Committee Secretary. 

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 161 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States) (Annex X).

Making another correction to list of co-sponsors, he said Malta had not co-sponsored that draft.

On a point of order, the representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia also indicated that it had not co-sponsored that draft.  Nor had the delegation of South Africa, which meant that Chile was the only new co-sponsor.

The representative of Yemen said that his delegation had not co-sponsored the text, yet its name had appeared on the list of co-sponsors.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union on the draft on preventing an outer space arms race, the representative of Italy said the Union had voted in favour of the draft, but in order to avoid any misunderstanding, it deemed it necessary to clarify the rationale for its vote. 

It was within the Conference on Disarmament, he said, as the only international multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament, that any decision should be taken regarding work on the prevention of an outer space arms race.  The Union was ready to support the establishment of a subsidiary body at the Conference to deal with that matter, on the basis of a mandate subjected to an agreement by all.  He recalled, however, that a fissile material cut-off treaty was a priority of the Union.

On a point of order, the representative of the Netherlands asked why the presentation on programme budget implications by the Controller for the draft resolution on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.5) had not been ready.  That was not a surprise draft and had appeared each year. 

The Chairman said he did not know the reason for the delay, but the Committee would take up that draft shortly, upon the readiness of that presentation. 

The representative of Belarus said that, had he been present for the vote on the draft on a convention to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers (document A/C.1/58/L.2), he would have voted in favour of that text.

Annexes

ANNEX I

Vote on Eliminating Nuclear Dangers

The draft resolution on eliminating nuclear dangers (document A/C.1/58/L.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 7 against, with

40 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, 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, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

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

Abstaining:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, 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, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX II

Vote on Missiles

The draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/58/L.4) was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 3 against, with 59 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

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

Abstaining:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX III

Vote on Assurance for Non-Nuclear-Weapon States

The draft resolution on assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States against threat of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.8) was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to none against, with 59 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstaining:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Reducing Nuclear Danger

The draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/58/L.34) was approved by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 46 against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, 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, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  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, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

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

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX V

Vote on Nuclear Weapons Convention

The draft resolution on a Convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.36) was approved by a recorded vote of 102 in favour to

46 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, 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, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  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, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

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

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Words “And South Asia”

The words “and South Asia” in operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38) were retained by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to 2 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, 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 Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  India, Pakistan.

Abstaining:  Bhutan, France, Georgia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Myanmar, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Op Para 5/Southern Hemisphere

Operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to 1 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, 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 Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India.

Abstaining:  Bhutan, France, Georgia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/58/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 3 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining:  Albania, Bhutan, Georgia, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Russian Federation, Spain.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Malawi, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

The draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/58/L.52) was approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to

1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstaining:  Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX X

Vote on Outer Space Arms Race

The draft resolution on preventing an arms race in outer space (document A.C.1/58/L.44) was approved by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, 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, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

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

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.

* *** *