TEXT OUTLINING ‘PATH’ TO TOTAL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS APPROVED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

19^th Meeting (AM)

TEXT OUTLINING ‘PATH’ TO TOTAL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

APPROVED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

Four More Resolutions Recommended to General Assembly;

Others Address Ottawa Convention, Dual-Use Technology, Regional Centres

   The General Assembly would call on all States to redouble their efforts to prevent and curb the proliferation of nuclear and other mass destruction weapons, according to one of four draft resolutions approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Entitled “A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons”, the draft resolution would have the Assembly call on all States to maintain the highest possible standards of security, safe custody, effective control and physical protection of all materials related to such weapons, so that they did not fall into the hands of terrorists.

The text, which was orally amended by Japan through the deletion of the word “recent” in a preambular paragraph about the challenges to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the need for full compliance, was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against (India, United States), with 16 abstentions (For details of the vote, see Annex I).

Explaining his negative vote, while reaffirming his staunch commitment to the complete elimination of those weapons globally, the representative of India said that the main legal instrument purported to achieve that objective, namely the NPT, seemed to have been ineffective.  India, therefore, would take a path that went beyond that discriminatory Treaty.  While he had agreed with the draft’s basic objectives, namely the global elimination of nuclear weapons, he could not support it because it contained several elements derived from that basic flawed premise and approach.

The United States’ representative said that the draft, like its predecessors, had stressed the importance of the urgent signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), with a view to achieving its early entry into force.  The United States, however, did not support the test-ban Treaty and would not become a party to it.  While he did not doubt the good intents of the sponsors of the draft resolution, he had again been forced to vote no.

Having supported the draft in his quest to rid the world of nuclear weapons, the Malaysian representative said the only defence against nuclear catastrophe was the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  Their possession and plans to build new nuclear weapons, as well as their possible use in future military conflicts, was alarming.  He shared the deep concern of the draft’s sponsors about the growing dangers of proliferation, but the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament had been frustrating.

By a vote of 143 in favour to 0 against, with 19 abstentions, an orally amended draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) would have the Assembly renew its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance mine risk education programmes, the removal of anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world, as well as the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims (Annex II).

Speaking before action on that text, the representative of Thailand orally amended the eleventh preambular paragraph, which notes with satisfaction that additional States have ratified or acceded to the Convention.  Given that Burundi and Sudan ratified the Convention in October, she said that the number of States that had formally accepted the obligations under the mine-ban Convention was now 141.

After the vote on the mine-ban draft, the representative of Pakistan said his country’s position had been determined by legitimate security concerns and the need to guard long borders not protected by natural obstacles.  Declaring that landmines formed a logical part of his country’s self-defence strategy, he said he could not totally accept the draft until other viable options were made available.  For that reason, he had abstained.

As in previous years, the representative of the Republic of Korea explained that she had abstained in the vote because the draft contained provisions that were inconsistent with her country’s legitimate security needs, arising from the unique situation on the Korean peninsula.  Nevertheless, she wholeheartedly supported the humanitarian cause of the mine-ban Convention, which aimed to eliminate the consequences of the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines, and her country had joined international efforts towards that noble goal.

Similarly, the Cuban representative said he had abstained in the vote.  Cuba had always ascribed due attention to the legitimate humanitarian concerns associated with the indiscriminate use of those weapons and had firmly supported a ban on the use of non-detectable mines in domestic conflicts and on the indiscriminate use of those weapons, generally.  For Cuba, however, it had been impossible to give up the use of that kind of weaponry, given the hostile and aggressive policy carried out against it for nearly 40 years.

Acting without a vote today, the Committee approved a revised draft resolution on national legislation on the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology.  It would have the Assembly invite Member States to enact or improve national legislation, regulations and procedures to exercise effective control over such transfers, and encourage States to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to the Secretary-General on their national legislation, as well as changes made therein.

Also without a vote, a draft resolution, submitted by the non-aligned movement of countries (NAM) was approved on the United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament.  It would have the Assembly reiterate the importance of the United Nations activities at the regional level to increase the stability and security of its Member States.

Statements were also made by the representatives ofBrazil, on behalf of the countries of the New Agenda Coalition (Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and Brazil), Germany, China, Austria, Colombia, France, Russian Federation, Myanmar, Iran, Nepal and Singapore.

The Committee will meet again at 2:30 p.m. Monday, 3 November, to continue taking action on draft texts.

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 weapons, conventional weapons, other disarmament machinery, and other disarmament measures.

Expected to be acted on under cluster 1, which concerns nuclear weapons, is a draft resolution entitled “A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.” Action is also expected on a draft resolution from cluster 4, which deals with conventional weapons.  That text involves implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention). 

From cluster 7, other disarmament machinery, the Committee is expected to act on a draft resolution concerning the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament.  In cluster 8, other disarmament measures, action is expected on a draft resolution concerning national legislation on the transfer of arms, military equipment, and dual-use goods and technology.

Draft Summaries

Expressing deep concern regarding the growing dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and convinced that every effort should be made to avoid nuclear devastation, the Assembly would invite the nuclear-weapon States to keep United Nations Members informed on their progress in the field of nuclear disarmament, according to a draft resolution sponsored by Australia, Cote d’Ivoire, Italy, Japan, and Switzerland and entitled “A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons” (document A/C.1/58/L.53/Rev.1). 

Stressing the importance of further developing verification capabilities, such as International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, the Assembly would also call upon all States to redouble their efforts to prevent and curb the proliferation of such weapons. 

It would also call upon all States to maintain the highest possible standards of security, safe custody, effective control and physical protection of all materials related to such weapons, so that they did not fall into the hands of terrorists.

(By an oral amendment introduced on 28 October by Japan to the draft text’s preambular paragraph 6, the word “recent” was deleted before the word “challenges.” Thus, the paragraph now reads 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.”)

A draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/58/L.43) would have the Assembly invite all States that had not yet signed the Convention to accede to it, and urge all States that signed but did not ratify it to do so without delay. 

The Assembly would also urge all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information to promote transparency and compliance with the Convention.

By a further term, it would renew its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance mine risk education programmes, the removal of anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world, as well as the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims.

The Assembly would also invite and encourage all interested States, the United Nations, other relevant international organizations or institutions, regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and relevant non-governmental organizations to participate in the programme of intersessional work established at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Convention and further developed at subsequent Meetings of States Parties to the Convention.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

A draft resolution on the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.28), sponsored by Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, would have the Assembly reiterate the importance of the United Nations activities at the regional level to increase the stability and security of its Member States, which could be promoted in a substantive manner by the maintenance and revitalization of the three regional centres. 

It would also reaffirm that it was useful for the centres to carry out dissemination and educational programmes that promoted regional peace and security and that were aimed at changing basic attitudes with respect to peace and security and disarmament, so as to support the achievement of the principles and purposes of the United Nations. 

The Assembly would also appeal to Member States in each region and those that were able to do so, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and their foundations, to make voluntary contributions to the centres in their respective regions to strengthen the activities and initiatives.

Under the terms of a text sponsored by the Netherlands, the Assembly, recalling that effective national control of transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology was an important tool in achieving disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation, would invite Member States to enact or improve national legislation, regulations and procedures to exercise effective control over the transfers of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology, while ensuring that such measures were consistent with the obligations of States parties under international treaties (document A/C.1/58/L.16/Rev.1).

It would also encourage States to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to the Secretary-General on their national legislation, regulations and procedures on such transfers, as well as the changes therein, and ask the Secretary-General to make that information accessible to Member States. 

Action on Texts

When the Committee turned to action on the draft resolution entitled “A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.53/Rev.1), the representative of Brazil, on behalf of the countries of the New Agenda Coalition (Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and Brazil) said that one of the most significant results of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had been the “unequivocal” undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all parties to the NPT were committed under article VI. 

The draft resolution before the Committee misinterpreted that outcome, as was the case in a similar draft last year, by placing the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States in its operative paragraph 3 in a way that suggested that that was a step that was yet to be taken.  Also, its placement created a contextual linkage with general and complete disarmament, which he could not accept.  He knew that the sponsors of that draft were committed to nuclear disarmament and he continued to appreciate that.  He would have been able to accept a return to language that would correctly reflect the outcome of the    2000 NPT Review.  As such language had not been used, members of the Coalition would abstain in the vote.

The representative of Germany said he fully shared the commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and, in particular, to the full implementation by all States parties of their obligations under the NPT.  That Treaty remained the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for nuclear disarmament.  The Final Document of the 2000 Review and its adoption by consensus had been an important step for the NPT, as well as for nuclear non-proliferation, as a whole.  He attached particular importance to the progressive and full implementation of the agreed practical steps, as those charted the way to nuclear disarmament. 

Unfortunately, he said, the resolution left room for possible misinterpretations, as far as that commitment to the full implementation of the practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement article VI of the NPT because it did not reflect that in its entirety.  That reduction remained a weak point of the text and was a reason for concerns, which had been raised in previous years.  In light of the draft’s clear commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, however, he would vote in favour of it, while underlining that he did not interpret the selective quoting as detracting from the comprehensive commitment of NPT States parties to implement the conclusions of the Final Document in their entirety.

Then, the Committee approved the draft resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as orally amended, by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against (India, United States), with 16 abstentions (Annex I).

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of India said his Government was unwaveringly committed to nuclear disarmament and the complete global elimination of nuclear weapons.  However, current methods being employed to attain those objectives had thus far not been effective.  Any path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons had to go beyond the discriminatory framework contained in the NPT and move towards equal and legitimate security for all.  Declaring that the objectives of the draft at hand were fine according to principle, he said he could not support it because several unacceptable elements in it had been derived from the flawed approach of the NPT. 

The representative of the United States, also speaking after the vote, said the draft on the total elimination of nuclear weapons, like its predecessors, stressed the importance of signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).  However, his Government did not support and would not become a party to that Treaty.  For that reason, although he did not doubt the good intentions of the draft’s sponsors, he had been forced to vote against it. 

The representative of China said he supported the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  However, there were deficiencies in the draft at hand.  Some of its elements, for example, were not realistic or feasible in the current international situation.  For that reason, he had abstained.

The representative of Austria said he had voted in favour of the draft resolution on the total elimination of nuclear weapons because it contained many items that he supported.  Declaring that he shared Japan’s commitment to nuclear disarmament, he said all States parties to the NPT should fulfil their obligations.  He also said he continued to attach importance to the final document adopted at the 2000 NPT review conference. 

Turning to the text’s operative paragraph 11, however, he expressed regret over its weak language regarding International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and verification capabilities.  That wording stood in stark contract to the importance the international community attached to the work of the IAEA.  In fact, in view of recent challenges to the NPT, the paragraph sent the message that the First Committee did not take seriously non-compliance with the carefully crafted and well-balanced Treaty. 

The representative of Colombia reaffirmed his commitment to the CTBT.  He also expressed the hope that future discussions would rectify any impediments his country faced, so that it could ratify the Treaty as soon as possible. 

The representative of France said he had backed the draft resolution on the path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  However, he had found the second preambular paragraph, which would have the Assembly recognize that the enhancement of international peace and security and the promotion of nuclear disarmament mutually complemented and strengthened each other, to be problematic.  After all, it departed from the formula to which his country had acceded under the NPT.  In that context, he clarified that, despite voting in favour of the draft, his delegation was not entering into any commitment that differed from France’s obligations under the NPT.  Additionally, that vote represented a “here-and-now” gesture, not to be construed as a precedent for his Government’s future dealings with nuclear issues. 

The representative of Pakistan said he found several provisions of that draft to be questionable.  It placed inordinate emphasis on non-proliferation, rather than on nuclear disarmament, which represented a regression in that vital area.  He also could not endorse the contents of some of the preambular paragraphs.  He also had reservations about operative paragraph 1, which reaffirmed the importance of achieving the universality of the NPT. 

As a non-party to the NPT, he said that meant that he was under no obligation to implement operative paragraph 3, which stressed the central importance of the practical steps for the systematic and progress efforts to implement article VI of the NPT, including the several sub-paragraphs contained therein.  Nor was he bound by any of the provisions emanating from the NPT Conferences or other forums in which Pakistan was not represented.  Thus, he had abstained in the vote, rather than opposed it. 

The representative of Malaysia said he voted in favour of the draft, in support of efforts towards a nuclear-weapon-free world.  The continued existence of those weapons threatened humanity and their use would have catastrophic consequences for all life on earth.  The only defence against nuclear catastrophe was the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  He shared the deep concern of the draft’s sponsors about the growing dangers of proliferation.  The lack of progress in nuclear disarmament, however, had been frustrating to everyone who was committed to the ultimate goal. 

He said that the possession of nuclear weapons, including plans to build new ones and their possible use in future military conflicts, was alarming.  The disarmament community must address that in a non-discriminatory manner and support efforts that sought to bring all countries together in creating a nuclear-weapon-free world. 

Next, the Committee turned to the draft resolution on implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/58/L.43).

Before taking action, the representative of Thailand submitted an oral amendment to the eleventh preambular paragraph, which notes with satisfaction that additional States have ratified or acceded to the Convention.  Given that Burundi and Sudan ratified the Convention in October, the number of States that had formally accepted the obligations under the Convention was now 141.  In light of the humanitarian nature of that instrument and the devastating effects of anti-personnel mines on human development worldwide, she hoped the draft would receive overwhelming support. 

The draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention (L.43/Rev.1), as orally amended, was approved by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to 0 against, with 19 abstentions (Annex II). 

Explaining his vote, the representative of India said he had abstained.  While he shared the ultimate objective, he was committed to a non-discriminatory, universal global ban on anti-personnel landmines through a phased process that addressed the legitimate defence requirements of States, while ameliorating the suffering that resulted from the use of landmines.  The phased approach would also serve the confidence-building process, while enabling States, especially with long borders, to safeguard their legitimate security needs.

He said that the complete elimination of anti-personnel mines would be facilitated by addressing their legitimate security role under the defence doctrines of States concerned, by developing non-lethal alternative technologies that could perform that role cost effectively.  He would support negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for a ban on the transfer of those weapons, on the basis of a mandate that reflected the interests of all delegations. 

India had played an active role in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and had ratified all of its protocols, including amended Protocol 2 on landmines, he said.  Since 1997, his country had taken certain steps, including discontinuing the production of non-detectable landmines. 

The representative of Cuba said he had abstained in the vote.  Cuba had always ascribed due attention to the legitimate humanitarian concerns associated with the indiscriminate use of those weapons.  It firmly supported a ban on their indiscriminate use and was opposed to the use of those weapons and non-detectable mines in domestic conflicts.  The ultimate aim of talks on anti-personnel mines had been about guaranteeing the maximum protection to the civil population, and not about “hamstringing” the military capability of countries to preserve their sovereignty and military integrity. 

He noted the absence in the text of any acknowledgement of legitimate security interests.  For more than 40 years, Cuba had been subjected to a policy of constant hostility and aggression by the greatest military and economic power in the world.  Thus, it had been impossible to give up the use of that kind of weaponry to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  He would continue to support any and all efforts against the indiscriminate use of those weapons, as long as they maintained the necessary balance between human and security issues.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said she had abstained in the vote, as in previous years, because it contained provisions that were inconsistent with her country’s legitimate security needs, arising from the unique situation on the Korean peninsula.  Nevertheless, she wholeheartedly supported the humanitarian cause of the Convention, which aimed to eliminate the consequences of the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines, and her country had joined international efforts towards that noble goal.  In addition, her Government had actively participated in discussions on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and had acceded to amended Protocol 2 in November 2001. 

Speaking after the vote on the draft concerning the Ottawa Convention, the representative of Pakistan said his country’s position had been determined by legitimate security concerns and the need to guard long borders not protected by natural obstacles.  Declaring that landmines formed a logical part of his country’s self-defence strategy, he said he could not totally accept the draft until other viable options were made available. For that reason, he had abstained.  He noted, however, that his country stood firmly against the irresponsible use of landmines, especially against civilians.

Also speaking in explanation of the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation said his country was not a party to the Ottawa Convention.  He, therefore, had been unable to support the draft.  However, he maintained that the Russian Federation would be prepared to accede to the Convention when conditions were provided for the actual implementation of its provisions.  In that regard, he favoured a stage-by-stage process to attain that objective.

The representative of Myanmar said that, although his country was not a party to the Convention and had not participated in the Ottawa process, it favoured a ban on the indiscriminate use, transfer, and export of mines.  Nevertheless, every State had the right to self-defence, as stated in the United Nations Charter.  Acknowledging that the indiscriminate use of such weapons was greatly harming civilians, he said they were too easily obtained.  Therefore, the international community had to concentrate on controlling their illicit trafficking and use, especially by non-State actors.  Nevertheless, he stated, the proper forum to deal with mines was the Conference on Disarmament.  And that was one of the reasons he had abstained in the vote.

Also speaking after the vote, the representative of Iran said mines had been used irresponsibly throughout the world and had claimed the lives of many innocent women and children.  He, therefore, welcomed any effort to stop that unacceptable trend.  Nevertheless, the Ottawa Convention was not an effective response, because it was not far-reaching enough and failed to involve many different but interrelated aspects of the landmine issue. 

He said the Convention would be more relevant if it took into account the concerns of countries with long land borders.  Landmines, after all, allowed such countries to meet their security requirements with minimum resources.  Therefore, more efforts were needed to explore new alternatives to mines.  In the meantime, efforts to limit their use could be encouraged, and international efforts could be made to speed up mine-clearance activities.  Before concluding, he said that, although he appreciated the essence of the draft, he could not support it.  For that reason, he had abstained.

The representative of Nepal said he had voted in favour of the draft on the Ottawa Convention because his country had always been an advocate of the instrument.  He noted, however, that it had not signed the Convention because of internal security concerns.

The representative of Singapore said his Government supported all initiatives taken against the indiscriminate use of mines, especially when used against innocent civilians.  That was why it had declared various mine-related moratoria.  However, he also expressed the belief that the right to self-defence and legitimate security concerns must be considered and made blanket policies governing the use of mines problematic.  In that regard, he pledged his country’s efforts to help find a global solution.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.28) without a vote.

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution on national legislation on the transfer of arms, military equipment, and dual-use goods and technology (document A/C.1/58/L.16/Rev.1).  It was also approved without a vote.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Cuba said that, although he had joined the consensus on the draft on such national legislation, he believed that only global, non-discriminatory, multilaterally negotiated, and legally binding treaties could guarantee strict international controls on such transfers.  In addition, the existence of export control regimes based on selective discriminatory criteria represented a serious obstacle to the inalienable right of all States to peacefully use chemical, biological, and nuclear technologies. 

Before the meeting adjourned, the representative of the United States took the floor on behalf of his country and the Russian Federation to announce a meeting to address non-proliferation measures being taken by the two countries to meet global security challenges.  That meeting, organized by both countries’ missions, would be held at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 November, in the Economic and Social Council Chamber. 

The representative of Papua New Guinea also took the floor to say he had not been in the room when the Committee had voted on the draft resolution on the path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.53).  Had he been present, however, he would have voted in favour of it, since his delegation was a co-sponsor. 

ANNEX I

Vote on Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.53/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against, with 16 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:      Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, 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, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, 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, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  India, United States.

Abstaining:  Bhutan, Brazil, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ireland, Israel, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Somalia, South Africa, Sweden.

Absent:  Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX II

Vote on Ottawa Convention

The draft resolution on implementing the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Their Destruction (document A/C.1/58/L.43) was approved, by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to 0 against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  None.

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

Absent:  Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

 * *** *