DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXT TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS OF UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONAL ARMS REGISTER

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

17^th Meeting (AM)

DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXT TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS

OF UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONAL ARMS REGISTER

Legality of Nuclear Weapons, Regional Disarmament

Among Other Issues Addressed, as 9 More Texts Recommended to General Assembly

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) today recommended nine more draft texts for adoption by the General Assembly, on such issues as the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, regional disarmament, and transparency in armaments.

According to the draft on transparency, on which four separate votes were taken, the Assembly, taking the view that an enhanced level of transparency in armaments contributed greatly to confidence-building and security among States, would reaffirm its determination to ensure the effective operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, and decide to adapt that instrument in conformity with the recommendations contained in the 2003 report of the Secretary-General.  Among those recommendations was the inclusion of Man-Portable

Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS).

Separate votes were requested on operative paragraph 2; operative paragraphs 3 and 8, and a sentence in operative paragraph 4, as a package; and operative paragraph 4, as a whole.  In requesting the separate votes, the Cuban representative explained that the recommendations of the group of governmental experts, contained in the report of the Secretary-General on the Register’s continuing operation, which the draft claimed to endorse, were substantive, with practical, wide-ranging implications.  While Cuba had been participating annually in the Register, he sought separate votes on those provisions because, given the limited composition of the expert group, its conclusions did not represent the opinions of all Member States.

The Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 2, which endorses the report of the Secretary-General on the Register and the recommendations of the expert group, by 139 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex IV).  By a vote of 138 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, the Committee decided to retain that package of provisions (Annex V).  It decided to retain operative paragraph 4, as a whole, by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex VI).  The draft as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions (Annex VII).

(Operative paragraph 3 concerns the decision to adapt the scope of the Register in conformity with the recommendations in the 2003 report of the Secretary-General.  Operative paragraph 4 calls on Member States to provide the Secretary-General annually the requested data and information for the Register, on the basis of, among other texts, the 2003 report of the Secretary-General.  Operative paragraph 8 requests the Secretary-General to implement the recommendations contained in that report.)

Speaking after those votes on behalf of the Arab Group, the Syrian representative called for a non-discriminatory and more expanded Register, which encompassed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.  As it currently stood, that instrument failed to address the security concerns of many countries.  Ignoring the most lethal, destruction weapons in the Middle East, where a great military imbalance persisted, would make the Register less relevant there.

The representative of Israel said that, accusations had been made against his country that had nothing to do with the Register and, in fact, were being made by representatives of countries that were not even participants in that instrument.  The Register did not pretend to be a solution for every issue, but Israel participated in it as an important confidence-building measure, and he called on his neighbours to do so, also.

Under a draft resolution on follow-up to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Assembly, convinced that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons posed a threat to all humanity and that their use would have catastrophic consequences for all life on earth, would underline, once again, the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there existed an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective control. 

That nuclear weapons-related text was approved by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 29 against, with 20 abstentions (Annex II).

Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, a separate vote was taken on the first operative paragraph, which underlined 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 in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.  The Committee voted to retain that paragraph by 140 in favour to 4 against (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with 5 abstentions (Belarus, Georgia, France, Portugal, United Kingdom) (Annex I).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a new draft resolution entitled “Regional disarmament”, submitted by Pakistan.  Convinced that endeavours by countries to promote regional disarmament would enhance the security of all States and reduce the risk of regional conflicts, the Assembly would stress that sustained efforts were needed, within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament and under the umbrella of the United Nations, to make progress on the entire range of disarmament issues. 

A recorded vote was requested, however, on Pakistan’s traditional text on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels, by which the Assembly would decide to give urgent consideration to the issues involved and ask the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation or principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control.  It was approved by a vote of 158 in favour to 1 against (India), with 1 abstention (Bhutan) (Annex III). 

By several other texts, approved without a vote, the Assembly would:  call upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of States and civil organizations to combat the illicit traffic in small arms; call upon all States that had not yet done so to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons; and call upon States to conclude agreements for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels. 

It would also:  call on Member States to report annually, by 30 April, to the Secretary-General their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year; urge the Conference on Disarmament to fulfil its role as the international community’s single multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament; and appeal to all States, international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 October, to continue taking action on all draft resolutions and decisions.

Background

When the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue its third and final phase of work, namely action on all draft resolutions and decisions, it had before it texts related to nuclear and conventional weapons, regional disarmament and security, confidence-building measures including transparency in armaments, and disarmament machinery.

Expected to be acted on under cluster 1, which concerns nuclear weapons, is a draft on the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”.

Action is also expected on two drafts from cluster 4, which concerns conventional weapons.  Those drafts deal with the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), and assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them.  In cluster 5, regional disarmament and security, action is expected on the draft resolutions on regional disarmament and conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels.  The Committee is also expected to take up two drafts in cluster 6, which concerns confidence-building measures, namely, objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures, and transparency in armaments.

In cluster 7, which deals with disarmament machinery, the Committee is expected to take action on two drafts concerning the report of the Conference on Disarmament and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa.

Draft Summaries

Cluster 1

Convinced that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons posed a threat to all humanity and that their use would have catastrophic consequences for all life on earth, the Assembly would underline, once again, the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there existed an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective control, under a draft resolution on 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.1/58/L.31).

The Assembly would call, once again, for all States to immediately fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.  It would ask all States to inform the Secretary-General of the efforts and measures they had taken to implement the present resolution and nuclear disarmament, and asked the Secretary-General to apprise the Assembly of that information at its next session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Tonga, Viet Nam, Yemen and Zambia.

Cluster 4

According to a draft on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.50), 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 United Kingdom.

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the illicit proliferation and circulation of and traffic in small arms in the States of the Sahelo-Saharan subregion, the Assembly, by a draft resolution concerning assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/58/L.51), would call upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of civil organizations to combat that trade.

It would also encourage the establishment of national commissions in the Sahelo-Saharan countries to combat the aforementioned proliferation, and invite the international community to lend support to those commissions.

By a further term, it would encourage civil society groups to participate in the work of the national commissions and in implementing the moratorium on the trade and manufacture of small arms and light weapons in West Africa.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Belgium, Benin, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Guinea, Ireland, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali (on behalf of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)), Mozambique, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Sweden, Togo and Zambia.

Cluster 5

Convinced that endeavours by countries to promote regional disarmament would enhance the security of all States and reduce the risk of regional conflicts, the Assembly, by the terms of a draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.9) would stress that sustained efforts were needed, within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament and under the umbrella of the United Nations, to make progress on the entire range of disarmament issues.  It would call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Egypt, Jordan, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan.

By a draft text on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/58/L.10), the Assembly, convinced that conventional arms control needed to be pursued primarily in the regional and subregional context since most threats to peace and security in the post-cold-war era arise mainly among States in the same region or subregion, would decide to give urgent consideration to the issues involved and ask the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation or principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Nepal, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru and Spain.

Cluster 6

A draft resolution on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/58/L.32) would have the Assembly call on Member States to report annually, by 30 April, to the Secretary-General their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data was available, using, preferably and to the extent possible, the United Nations system for the standardized reporting of military expenditures.  It would encourage them to submit nil returns, if appropriate. 

Among the draft’s several requests was that the Secretary-General, within existing resources, continue consultations with relevant international bodies, with a view to ascertaining requirements for adjusting the present instrument and to encourage wider participation, and to make recommendations based on necessary changes to the content and structure of that reporting system.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay.

By a draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45), the Assembly would reaffirm its determination to ensure the effective operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.  With a view to achieving universal participation, it would also call upon Member States to provide the Secretary-General by 31 May annually with the requested data and information for the Register, including nil reports if appropriate.

By a further term, it would invite Member States in a position to do so, pending further development of the Register, to provide additional information on procurement from national production and military holdings and to make use of the “Remarks” column in the standardized reporting form to provide additional information such as types or models.

It would also reiterate its call upon all Member States to cooperate at the regional and subregional levels, taking fully into account the specific conditions prevailing in the region or subregion, with a view to enhancing and coordinating international efforts aimed at increased openness and transparency in armaments.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia.

Cluster 7

A draft resolution sponsored by Japan on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.5) would have the Assembly urge the Conference to fulfil its role as the international community’s single multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament, in light of the evolving international situation and with a view to making early substantive progress on its agenda.

Concerned that the continued financial difficulties faced by the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, the Assembly would appeal, once again, to all States, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and foundations, to make voluntary contributions, in order to strengthen the programmes and activities of the Regional Centre, according to a draft resolution sponsored by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of African States (document A/C.1/58/L.13).  It would appeal to the Centre, in cooperation with the African Union, regional and subregional organizations and the African States, to promote the consistent implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

General Statement

KUNIKO INOGOUCHI (Japan) orally introduced an amendment to her delegation’s draft resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.53/Rev.1).  Based on consultations over the past few weeks, she had made a minor revision to the sixth preambular paragraph, which recognized progress made by the nuclear-weapon States in the reduction of their nuclear weapons.

Specifically, she said she had deleted the qualifier “recent” before the word “challenges” in that paragraph.  That revision should not cause any problem for any delegation, but rather should clarify the meaning of that important paragraph on compliance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  She hoped the text would be supported by an overwhelming majority.

The new sixth preambular paragraph would now read as follows:  “Bearing in mind that challenges to the Treaty and to the nuclear non-proliferation regime have further increased the necessity of full compliance and that the Treaty can fulfil its role only if there is confidence in compliance by all States parties,”.

Action on Texts

Turning to action on the draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/58/L.31) the Committee first took action on operative paragraph 1, which underlined 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 in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.  

The Committee voted to retain that paragraph by 140 in favour to 4 against (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with 5 abstentions (Belarus, Georgia, France, Portugal, United Kingdom) (Annex I).

The draft as a whole was approved by a vote of 104 in favour to 29 against, with 20 abstentions (Annex II).

Speaking after the votes, the representative of Luxembourg, on behalf of the Benelux countries, said he supported the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, which was why he had voted to retain the first operative paragraph. 

While the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, he said he had been unable to support the whole of the draft, as that referred only to one element of the advisory opinion.  That opinion was indivisible and should be considered in its entirety.  Further, nuclear disarmament could only be achieved through a gradual process, and focus should be on the 13 practical steps agreed at the NPT Review Conference. 

The representative of Japan said she highly appreciated Malaysia’s firm commitment to the goal of nuclear disarmament, which had led to the submission of the draft on the advisory opinion.  The use of nuclear weapons, because of their immense power to cause destruction, was clearly contrary to the fundamental humanitarian ideals, which informed international law.   Nuclear weapons should never be used again, and continuous efforts should be made towards rendering the world nuclear-weapon free. 

She said, however, that the advisory opinion had clearly demonstrated the complexity of the subject.  She supported that unanimous opinion to pursue nuclear disarmament and to conclude negotiations on that matter in good faith, and she firmly believed that concrete measures must be taken to achieve steady step-by-step progress in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.  In that context, however, it was premature to call upon all States immediately to fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations, leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.  Steady incremental progress should be made prior to embarking on the negotiations, which resolution “L.31” called on all States to commence.  That was why she had abstained in the vote. 

The CHAIRMAN then turned to the first draft resolution in cluster 4, namely the draft on the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.50).  It was approved without a vote.

The second draft resolution in cluster 4, on assistance to States for curbing the illicit trade in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/58/L.51), was also approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up the draft on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.9), from cluster 5 and approved it without a vote.

The second draft resolution from cluster 5, on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/58/L.10), was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to one against (India), with one abstention (Bhutan) (Annex III).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of India said that in 1993 the United Nations Disarmament Commission had already adopted, by consensus, guidelines that dealt with regional approaches to disarmament and security.  Therefore, new principles were not really required.  Declaring that he was not convinced of the need for global principles for regional arrangements, he also stressed that security parameters could not be confined to artificially defined regions.  For those reasons, and because the narrow definitions espoused by the draft resolution were too restrictive, he had voted against it.

The Committee then took up draft resolutions from cluster 6.

Speaking before the votes, the representative of Syria said that, in light of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45), he supported a world free from the use of force or threat of force, in which peace, equality and justice prevailed.  He also stated that his country was prepared to participate in any international efforts aimed at attaining such a world.

However, he added, the draft at hand did not take into account the specific situation in the Middle East.  In that region, there was a prolonged conflict because of Israel’s continued occupation of Arab territories and its failure to implement Security Council resolutions.  Also noting that Israel possessed the deadliest and most sophisticated of weapons, he found it disturbing that that country’s expressed wishes for transparency only covered the tiniest part of its sophisticated arsenal.

Concerning the draft resolution entitled transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45), the representative of Cuba said he had requested a separate vote on operative paragraphs 3 and 8, and a sentence in operative paragraph 4, as a package, on the basis of the following elements:  the recommendations of the group of governmental experts contained in the report of the Secretary-General, which the draft claimed to endorse, were substantive recommendations, with practical, wide-ranging implications.  The conclusion of the expert group did not represent the opinions of all Member States because, as was well known, that was a group of limited composition.

He said that Member States had the legitimate right to have a reasonable time period for assessing those recommendations, which, because of their implications, required the involvement in their countries of parties from different sectors.  The procedures being followed were not very participatory, as delegations were being compelled to accept recommendations in the Secretary-General’s report without having had the opportunity to take a stand and have an exchange of views.  Such procedures, instead of contributing to the progressive development of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and its universality, seemed to have the opposite effect.

Continuing, he said he had expressed his concerns about the draft and requested that note be taken of the conclusion of the expert group.  He had also proposed that the Secretary-General be asked to request the opinions of Member States regarding the group’s findings, to be submitted for consideration by the Assembly at its fifty-ninth session, in a “fresh” report of the Secretary-General.  Unfortunately, those suggestions had not been taken into account.  Transparency in armaments was an important factor in creating confidence and détente among States. The Register was a concrete measure, which could contribute to that objective.  Cuba had been participating in it yearly.

Nonetheless, he said, the Register must be well balanced, comprehensive and non-discriminatory, and it must promote the national, regional and international security of all States, in accordance with international law.  In order to achieve its universality, that must also include weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.  Account should also be taken of the fact that all States had the right to self-defence and, therefore, the right to acquire weapons for their own security, including from external sources.  Consequently, legal arms transfers could not be prohibited.  The Register was a confidence-building measure, which must not obviate the legitimate security needs of States. 

That measure was complemented by others at the national, regional and global levels, he noted.  Its voluntary nature was appropriate to allow for transparency in armaments and confidence-building.  The inclusion in it of information related to sophisticated conventional weapons, weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, and transfers of equipment and technology directly related to the development and production of nuclear weapons, would make the Register a better balanced and more comprehensive instrument.  For those reasons, Cuba had been unable to join consensus on the draft.

First, acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution entitled objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/58/L.32).

Then, it was announced that separate votes would be taken on:  operative paragraph 2; followed by a vote, as a package, on operative paragraph 3, plus the words appearing at the end of operative paragraph 4, namely “as well as the 2003 report of the Secretary-General”, and operative paragraph 8; and operative paragraph 4.

Operative paragraph 2 endorsed the report of the Secretary-General (document A/58/203) on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development and the recommendations ensuing from the consensus report of the 2003 group of governmental experts contained therein.

Operative paragraph 3 decides to adapt the scope of the Register in conformity with the recommendations in the 2003 report of the Secretary-General.

Operative paragraph 4 calls on Member States to provide the Secretary-General by 31 May annually the requested data and information for the Register, on the basis of previous relevant resolutions, the recommendations contained in paragraph 64 of the 1997 report of the Secretary-General on that question and in paragraph 94 of his 2000 report, and the appendixes and annexes thereto, as well as the 2003 report of the Secretary-General.

Operative paragraph 8 requests the Secretary-General to implement the recommendations contained in his 2003 report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development and to ensure that sufficient resources were made available for the Secretariat to operate and maintain the Register.

The Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 2 by 139 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex IV).

By a vote of 138 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, the Committee decided to retain the package of provisions (Annex V).

It then decided to retain operative paragraph 4, by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex VI).

The draft as a whole on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45) was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions (Annex VII).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Iran said he had abstained.  That was consistent with his country’s position advocating a more comprehensive approach to transparency in armaments.  After more than 10 years of the Register’s operation, for the first time the group of governmental experts had moved “some inches forward” and added new items to the list of seven categories.  While Iran had actively participated in the work of the group, it had repeatedly announced that transparency in conventional arms without transparency in weapons of mass destruction was imbalanced and lacked comprehensiveness.

He said that was particularly so in the sensitive region of the Middle East, where Israel remained the only non-party to the NPT and continued to possess nuclear and other mass destruction weapons.  There had been a pattern concerning the lack of participation of the countries in West Asia and North Africa in the Register.  That pattern demonstrated that the Register, which had been in force more than a decade, was not a popular confidence-building mechanism in West Asia and its neighbourhood, due to the legitimate concerns of the countries in the region.

Resolution 46/36 L of 1991, as the basis of the whole initiative, had not been fully and faithfully implemented, he said.  There was only a recall of that resolution in the current draft.  He hoped that in the future a true and comprehensive transparency in armaments, which included all kinds of weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction, would be pursued by the General Assembly, as was recommended by the 2000 group of governmental experts.

The representative of Syria, on behalf of the Arab Group, said the Register on Conventional Arms, in order to become more relevant, had to become more non-discriminatory.  Expressing concern that many countries had not submitted any information to the Register, he said the instrument needed to be expanded.  Rather than being limited to 7 categories of conventional arms, it should encompass weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.  Such a change would make the Register more comprehensive and less discriminatory, and that would encourage more countries to participate.  As it stood currently, the instrument failed to address many countries’ security concerns.

Turning to the Middle East, he said the great military imbalance there represented a special case.  In that context, ignoring the most lethal, destructive weapons would only make the Register less relevant in his region.  Noting that Israel continued to occupy Arab lands, possessed weapons of mass destruction, had not acceded to the NPT, and had failed to subject its nuclear facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, he said it was especially worrying that the group of governmental experts had not been able to expand the Register’s scope to include weapons of mass destruction.  In that regard, the instrument had failed to serve as an adequate confidence-building tool.

The representative of China, explaining his abstention from the draft on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45), said that, despite his Government’s support for the Register, it had noted that a certain country had been registering sales to the Chinese province of Taiwan as a footnote.  Such interference in the internal affairs of China were unacceptable, since the Register was only supposed to deal with sovereign States.  For that reason, his country had suspended its participation in the instrument since 1998.

The representative of Algeria said he had voted against the draft on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45) because the Register was insensitive, imbalanced, selective, and limited in terms of the arms it covered.  Stressing that the instrument should look beyond the mere transfers of conventional arms, he called on it to address more categories of weapons, as well as national production, procurement, and other military holdings.  After all, true confidence could not be built only upon sharing information about conventional weapon transfers.  In that regard, he said that, instead of a greater number of participants, the ultimate goal of the Register should be to attain honest universal participation and the inclusion of all types of weapons.  That would be more consistent with reality.

The representative of Israel then took the floor to explain his vote on the draft on transparency (document A/C.1/58/L.45).  However, the representative of Syria, in a point of order, declared that, as a co-sponsor, Israel had no right to explain his vote.  Acknowledging that the Syrian representative was correct, the Chairman of the Committee said the Israeli delegate could, however, make a general statement if he so desired.  The representative of Israel responded that he was actually not a co-sponsor of the draft.  The Chair acknowledged the validity of that statement and allowed the Israeli representative to take the floor in explanation of his vote.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Israel said that, as in previous years, he had been forced to listen to a long list of baseless accusations against his country’s self-defence policies, in the context of the Register.  The accusations, however, had nothing to do with the Register and were, in fact, being made by representatives of countries that were not even participants in the instrument.  Stating that the Register did not pretend to be a solution for every issue, he noted that his country participated in it because it represented an important confidence-building measure.

Unfortunately, gradual confidence-building was a problem for certain States, which continued to express concern over his country’s self-defence policies.  That was ironic considering other more pressing areas of alarm.  Noting that countries that were not hostile to Israel were also not worried about its capabilities to defend itself, he maintained that participating in the Register constituted a stepin the right direction, and he called on his neighbours to join it. Only when relations warmed could the instrument be further developed.  To further put his Syrian counterpart at ease, he said he would like to add his delegation to the list of the draft resolution’s co-sponsors.

The representative of Myanmar also explained his vote on the draft on transparency (document A/C.1/58/L.45).  Declaring that the Register should be universal, non-discriminatory, and voluntary, he said it should not only be confined to conventional weapons.  Declaring that weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, should be addressed as well, he said the draft resolution was imbalanced since it excluded such arms.  Also noting problems with operative paragraphs 2, 4 and 8, he said he had abstained in votes on the draft as a whole, as well as on separate paragraphs.

The representative of Egypt said he had abstained in the votes on the same draft (document A/C.1/58/L.45) and all operative paragraphs, because the Register had not been successful in addressing the real essence of confidence-building.  Instead, it continued to concern itself with peripheral, rather than core issues.

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolutions on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.5), and on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/58/L.13).

The representative of Italy took the floor to introduce a booklet entitled Internet Services for Delegates –- A Guide to Information and Communication Technology Services for Permanent and Observer Missions to the United Nations in New York.  It was the product of the Economic and Social Council working group on informatics, which was established in 1995 with a mandate to facilitate the successful implementation of the initiatives undertaken by the Secretary-General with regard to the use of information technology.  The booklet was distributed in the room.

The representative of Haiti said that, had he been present, he would have voted in favour of operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution on the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion.

The representative of Australia said she had mistakenly voted no on the International Court of Justice draft resolution as a whole.  That should have been an abstention.

The representative of Kenya said he also would have supported the International Court of Justice draft resolution had he been present for the vote.

ANNEX I

Vote on Operative Paragraph 1 of ICJ Advisory Opinion

The first operative paragraph of the draft resolution on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/58/L.31) was retained by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to 4 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, 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, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, 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, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Israel, Russian Federation, United States.

Abstaining:  Belarus, France, Georgia, Portugal, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on ICJ Advisory Opinion

The draft resolution concerning the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/58/L.31) was approved by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 29 against, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belize, 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, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Australia, 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:  Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Regional Conventional Arms Control

The draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/58/L.10) was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, 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, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, 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, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, 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, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India.

Abstaining:  Bhutan.

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

ANNEX IV

Vote on Operative Paragraph 2/Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45) was retained by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, 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, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstaining:  Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.

ANNEX V

Vote on Operative Paragraphs 3,4 (Last Words), 8

Operative paragraphs 3, 4 (the words “as well as the 2003 report of the Secretary-General”) and 8 in the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45) were retained by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, 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, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstaining:  Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 4/Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45) was retained by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  None.

Abstaining:  Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments

The draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/58/L.45) was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  None.

Abstaining:  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

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

* *** *