NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES CALLED ON TO HALT IMPROVEMENT, STOCKPILING OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS, IN TEXT APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

20^th Meeting (PM)

NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES CALLED ON TO HALT IMPROVEMENT, STOCKPILING

OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS, IN TEXT APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

Four Resolutions Recommended to General Assembly;

Others Address Middle East, Environmental Norms, Small Arms Traffic

Stressing the need to take concrete practical steps towards achieving the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, the General Assembly would urge the nuclear-weapon States to immediately stop the qualitative improvement, development, production, and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems, according to one of four draft resolutions approved today in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security). 

Under a related term, the Assembly would urge the nuclear-weapon States to, as an interim measure, immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear-weapon systems.  It would also urge those States to commence plurilateral negotiations among themselves at an appropriate stage on further deep reductions of nuclear weapons.

That draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 43 against, with 18 abstentions (Annex III). 

In explanation of vote, the representative of China said he supported the objectives and main thrust of the draft, but in the current international situation, it was premature to implement some specific nuclear disarmament measures set forth in the text.  All nuclear disarmament measures, including interim steps, must follow the principle of maintaining global strategic stability and undiminished security for all countries.

Similarly, the representative of India, explaining his abstention, said he had supported that draft until 2000, but it had now moved in a direction that included elements of the NPT, on which his position was well-known.  He, therefore, had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole, but that was not a reflection on other elements of the text, on which he shared a common position with Myanmar and the other co-sponsors.

A draft resolution submitted by Egypt on behalf of the League of Arab States on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 10 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, India, Ethiopia, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Tongo, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu) (Annex II).

It would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of Israel’s accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.  It would call upon that State to accede to the NPT without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards.

Prior to approval of that draft as a whole, a separate vote was taken on preambular paragraph 6, which called on those remaining States, not parties to the NPT to accede to it, thereby accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities.

The Committee voted to retain that paragraph by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 11 abstentions (Annex I).

Calling that text blatantly one-sided, contentious, and divisive, the representative of Israel asserted that, since its introduction several years ago, many alarming international developments, related to nuclear proliferation, had affected the region, including efforts by some countries to obtain missiles and weapons of mass destruction.  The draft’s bias stemmed from its failure to acknowledge that the real risk of nuclear proliferation came from countries that, despite the treaties they had signed and ratified, were not complying with their obligations as parties.

By a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (France, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United Kingdom) (Annex IV), the Committee approved a text on observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements, which would reaffirm that international disarmament forums should take fully into account the relevant environmental norms in negotiating treaties and agreements. 

Speaking after the vote, the United States’ representative said he had previously made clear that there was no connection between environmental standards and multilateral disarmament agreements.  States parties to all disarmament agreements should take relative environmental concerns into account when implementing their obligations.  His country operated under stringent standards, but concern for the environment should not overburden the crucial agreement-crafting phase, to which the environment was not relevant to the central purpose.

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution that would have the Assembly, in the context of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), reaffirm the importance of measures to combat the illicit trade of such weapons, including ongoing efforts at the regional and subregional levels.

A new draft resolution, which would have had the Assembly decide to hold, before the 2005 NPT review conference, a conference of States parties and signatories of nuclear-weapon-free zone Treaties was withdrawn by the representative of Mexico, who said the Secretariat’s figures for convening such a conference at United Nations Headquarters, late in coming, had been 30 per cent higher than initial estimates and there had not been sufficient time for further consultations among the signatories and ratifiers regarding the identification of alternative ways and means of obtaining the objective, as reflected in the draft. 

Statements were also made by the representatives of Cuba, Canada, Pakistan, France, South Africa, Azerbaijan and Egypt.

The Committee will meet again at 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, 4 November, to conclude action on all draft texts.

Background

When the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon 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; and other disarmament measures.

Expected to be acted on under cluster 1, which concerns nuclear weapons, are three draft resolutions dealing with the following topics:  a conference of States parties and signatories of nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties; the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East; and nuclear disarmament.

Action is also expected on one draft resolution from cluster 4, which deals with conventional weapons.  That text involves regional promotion in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) of the United Nations programme of action to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  From cluster 8, other disarmament measures, a draft on the observance of environmental norms in drafting and implementing disarmament and arms control agreements, will be acted on.

Draft Summaries

By a new draft resolution, sponsored by Mexico, on the Conference of States parties and signatories of treaties that had established nuclear-weapon-free zones (document A/C.1/58/L.19), the Assembly would decide to hold, before the 2005 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a Conference of States parties and signatories of treaties that had established nuclear-weapon-free zones.

The Assembly would further decide to establish a Preparatory Committee open to the participation of all States parties and signatories of those treaties and instruments, which would hold two sessions, the first to be held in New York during the second quarter of 2004.  It would ask the Preparatory Committee to decide on the date and venue of the Conference and to make recommendations on all relevant matters, including the draft agenda, draft rules of procedure, the modalities of participation of States parties to the Protocols to the nuclear-weapon-free zone Treaties and other interested States, as well as of non-governmental organizations and a draft final document, and to decide on background documents to be made available in advance.

According to a draft resolution submitted by Egypt on behalf of the League of Arab States on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.23), the Assembly, noting that Israel remained the only State in the Middle East that had not yet become party to the NPT, would call upon it to accede to the Treaty without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.

A draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.47) would have the Assembly urge the nuclear-weapon States to immediately stop the qualitative improvement, development, production, and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.

It would also urge them to, as an interim measure, immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear-weapon systems.

By a further term, it would call on those States to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument imposing policies of no-first use, and upon all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non-use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.

It would also urge nuclear-weapon States to commence plurilateral negotiations among themselves at an appropriate stage on further deep reductions of nuclear weapons.

By additional terms, the Assembly would call for the full and effective implementation of the 13 steps for nuclear disarmament, contained in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and urge the nuclear-weapon States to carry out further reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives.

The Assembly would also call for the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.  In that context, it would urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree on a programme of work, which includes immediate negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their conclusion within five years.

By further terms, it would call for the conclusion of an international legal instrument or instruments on adequate security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States, for the early entry into force and strict observance of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and for the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament at an early date to identify and deal with concrete measures to attain that goal.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Tonga, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

According to a draft resolution concerning regional promotion in the OSCE of the United Nations programme of action on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.46/Rev.1), the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons, including ongoing efforts at the regional and subregional levels.

It would also invite all Member States that had not yet done so to examine the possibility of developing and adopting regional and subregional measures, as appropriate, to combat that illicit trade.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

The Assembly, by a text on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements (document A/C.1/58/L.27), would reaffirm that international disarmament forums should take fully into account the relevant environmental norms in negotiating treaties and agreements.  It would call upon States to adopt unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral measures so as to contribute to ensuring the application of scientific and technological progress in the framework of international security, disarmament and other related spheres, without detriment to the environment or to its effective contribution to attaining sustainable development.

Malaysia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, sponsored the draft resolution.

General Statements

GUSAVO ALBIN (Mexico) said the present international situation required concrete and specific measures, in order to confront the threats facing all.  That was not a new assertion, but it was a fact that had acquired a new dimension in recent years.  The objective of disarmament, and specifically of nuclear disarmament, and of other weapons of mass destruction today were more relevant than ever before.  On 6 October, he announced the intention of his delegation to promote, at this session, the convening of a conference of States parties and signatories of Treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones.  In presenting the draft resolution to that end (A/C.1/58/L.19), his delegation had sought to make a contribution.

He said that the first contribution was to improve dialogue, cooperation, and an exchange of experience among countries and regions that had established such zones, with the objective of achieving higher levels of coordination and the promotion of the full implementation of those treaties and their protocols.  The second contribution was to make concrete progress in the collective disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation obligations and, in that way, to make a positive contribution to the Review Conference of the NPT in 2005.  Throughout consultations, it had become clear that the immense majority of countries, in addition to the signatories and ratifiers of the nuclear-weapon-free zone Treaties, shared the objectives contained in the text.  Regrettably, during the process of identifying and specifying the financial implications, he had not had the timely support of the United Nations Secretariat.

At all times, the Secretariat had listened with attention and interest, he said.  Nonetheless, he was surprised at how late the responses came.  In fact, it was only on 30 October that the Secretariat circulated in document A/C.1/58/L.60, the costs of holding the conference at United Nations Headquarters.  The final figure was about 30 per cent higher than the preliminary estimate, which he had received informally on 21 October and which had served as the basis for consultations.  The Secretariat had indicated that the figure might be higher, but he had never imagined the magnitude of that increase.  Under those circumstances, and given the broad support for the draft resolution, he had concluded that there was not enough time for further consultations among the signatories and ratifiers regarding the identification of alternative ways and means of obtaining the objective, as reflected in the draft.  For those reasons, he would not insist that the General Assembly take a decision at the current session.

Action on texts

Speaking before the vote, the representative of Israel said the draft concerning the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.23) was blatantly one-sided, contentious, and divisive.  In addition, it did not enhance, but rather undermined confidence, between the States of the region.  Since the draft had been first introduced, many alarming international developments, related to nuclear proliferation, had affected the region.  For example, efforts by some countries to obtain missiles and weapons of mass destruction were now evident.

The bias of the draft resolution stemmed from its failure to acknowledge that the real risk of nuclear proliferation came from countries that, despite the treaties they had signed and ratified, were not complying with their obligations as parties.  Rather than ignoring reality, the text should, therefore, focus on objective ways to address situations, as they existed.  Because the draft resolution focused on only one country that had never threatened its neighbours, namely, Israel, it was counterproductive and hurt the credibility of the First Committee.  He added that the fact that some countries found the draft balanced was a source of deep disappointment.  After all, discrimination should not be practised in the Committee.

The representative of Cuba, also speaking before the vote, said he would vote in favour of the draft on nuclear disarmament (A/C.1/58/L.47).  Declaring that the elimination of nuclear weapons remained the highest disarmament-related priority in the world, he said his country had always supported initiatives to achieve that end.  Recalling that the recent summit of the Non-Aligned Movement had expressed profound concern over the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament, he appealed to the Conference on Disarmament to set up, on a priority basis, a special committee to deal with nuclear disarmament, and begin negotiations on a programme of work to achieve the elimination of such weapons in stages.

Turning to the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.23), the Committee first took up preambular paragraph 6, which, among other things, called on those remaining States not parties to the Treaty on the NPT to accede to it, thereby accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on all their nuclear activities. 

The Committee voted to retain preambular paragraph 6 by a vote of 142 in favour to 2 against, (India, Israel) with 11 abstentions (Annex I). 

The draft resolution as a whole was then approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 10 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, India, Ethiopia, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, and Vanuatu) (Annex II).

Next, the Committee approved the draft resolution entitled “Nuclear disarmament” (document A/C.1/58/L.47) by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 43 against, with 18 abstentions (Annex III).

The representative of China said he supported the objectives and main thrust of the draft, but in the current international situation, it was premature to implement some specific nuclear disarmament measures set forth in the text.  All nuclear disarmament measures, including interim steps, must follow the principle of maintaining global strategic stability and undiminished security for all countries.

The representative of India said he had abstained in the vote on “L.23” and cast a negative vote on prembular paragraph 6, as that made a reference to the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT, on which India’s position was well-known.  His position on the fifth preambular paragraph (which refers to the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the NPT and reaffirms the importance of early realization of universal adherence to the NPT) should also be seen in that light, even though he had not asked for a separate vote on that particular term.

He said it was necessary to limit the focus of the draft to the region it intended to address, while noting the substantial contribution made by Egypt, the text’s main sponsor, to disarmament efforts, which he fully respected.  The issues in the draft had received widespread consideration in the international community, and he hoped it would be possible to make progress on the issues involved in the coming years through positive contributions by the concerned States of the region. 

Turning to the nuclear disarmament text he said he had abstained in the vote.  India had a longstanding and unwavering commitment to nuclear disarmament and the global elimination of nuclear weapons.  He had supported that draft until 2000, but it had now moved in a direction that included elements of the NPT, on which his position was well known.  He, therefore, had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole, but that was not a reflection on other elements of the text, on which he shared a common position with Myanmar and the other co-sponsors. 

Explaining his vote on Middle East nuclear proliferation, the representative of Canada said his country had long supported the universalization of the NPT, and in that connection, had long called on India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to and abide by that Treaty.  He supported the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference, which called on all States not yet party to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States.  The draft in its operational portion, however, had failed to address his concerns about compliance with the NPT.  And like last year’s draft, had failed to deal appropriately with both adherence to, and full compliance with, the NPT.

Also speaking on that text, the representative of Pakistan said he had supported that draft, but had reservations about the sixth preambular paragraph, which called for the universalization of the NPT.  Pakistan was not a party to that Treaty, and, as a State that possessed nuclear weapons, it could not accede to the NPT or accept such provisions.

Explaining her abstention in the vote on nuclear disarmament, the representative of Japan said it was her country’s fervent desire and firm conviction that the use of nuclear weapons should never be repeated and that continuing efforts should be made to rid the world of those weapons.  She had taken note of a number of positive elements concerning nuclear disarmament in that text, including, for example, the reference to the NPT as a cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.  The text had also incorporated some steps towards nuclear disarmament agreed at the 2000 Review Conference, but the draft had not commanded her Government’s full support, and so her delegation had made the difficult choice to abstain. 

Specifically, she said, the draft contained elements of a specific time frame for nuclear disarmament.  The steps towards nuclear disarmament should be realistic and progressive, with the involvement of the nuclear-weapon States from the beginning of the process. She, thus, sought a different approach towards the shared goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), in a general statement, said that with regards to the draft on regional promotion in the OSCE of the United Nations programme of action to combat the illicit trade in small arms (document A/C.1/58/L.46/Rev.1), he wished to see sustained progress in implementing the programme of action at all levels.  Extolling the progress made by regional organizations in that regard, he lauded the Organization of American States (OAS), of which his country was a Member, and the OSCE, to which Canada had contributed.  Drawing special attention to the development of the “best practice” guides, which dealt with national marking systems, manufacturing data, import and export policies, stockpile management, brokering, and definitions to indicate surpluses, as well as disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration, he hoped they would find a wide audience.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) referred to three technical points in the same draft, all of which concerned the linguistic nuances of the English and French versions.  Specifically, in the fifth preambular paragraph, the French “circulation” should be replaced with “commerce and trade”.  The French and English texts also differed slightly in operative paragraph 3 and the seventh preambular paragraph.  To rectify the problem, he said the English text should faithfully follow its French counterpart.  The issues he was raising, however, were only stylistic problems and did not interfere with the basic meaning of the text.

The Committee approved the OSCE draft (A/C.1/58/L.46/Rev.1) without a vote.

Speaking in explanation of his vote, the representative of South Africa said regional approaches to the problem of small arms would reinforce national action.  Additionally, indigenous strategies, developed by individual regions, would serve as the building blocks for global approaches.  For its part, South Africa had already worked hard within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to adopt a legally binding instrument on firearms.

Turning to the work of the Committee, he said that, in order for it to be more efficient, its resolutions should not be duplicated.  There should not be many texts dealing with a single topic.  Additionally, the programme of action should be implemented comprehensively, not broken up and developed in different resolutions.

Also speaking after the vote, the representative of Cuba said that while the revised text contained several positive amendments, its relevance was not clear, since a general draft on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.1/Rev.1) already existed.  Stating that there was no reason to single out the practices of the OSCE, he added that any attempts to universalize practices should take into account the fact that every region had its own specificities.  Expressing concern that other regions might feel entitled to submit resolutions along the same lines, he said that that would contradict the desire to streamline the work of the Committee by reducing its number of resolutions.  He maintained that regional groups had the right to circulate papers on their work.  However, it was not necessarily helpful to have the General Assembly codify that work in a resolution.

The representative of Azerbaijan, explaining his vote on the same draft, said he had joined the consensus because he supported the values expressed in the text.  Acknowledging that small arms and light weapons represented a grave threat to international security and stability, he noted regional efforts taken by the GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova) countries.  Nevertheless, a draft resolution, such as the one at hand, was difficult to implement in a subregion like the South Caucasus, especially since Armenia continued to engage in illegal weapons transfers and store arms in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.  Lamenting that such practices hampered development of the States in the subregion, he maintained that regional cooperation with Armenia could only come about if his country’s sovereignty was respected.

The representative of Canada then briefly took the floor to announce that his delegation was an additional cosponsor of the OSCE draft.

The representative of Egypt added that, while having problems with the original OSCE draft, he had supported the revised version because of France’s good spirit and great efforts to improve the text.

The representative of India said he had joined consensus on the same draft because he had been satisfied by the consultation process and the changes it had produced in the text.  He added that it was good for regional specificities to always be kept in mind.

The Committee then approved the draft on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements (document A/C.1/58/L.27) by a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, France, Israel, United Kingdom) (Annex IV).

Speaking in explanation of his vote, the representative of the United States said his delegation had, in previous years, stressed that there was no connection between environmental standards and multilateral disarmament agreements.  That was why it had abstained in the past.  Declaring that States parties to all disarmament agreements should take relative environmental concerns into account when implementing texts; he said his country already operated under stringent environmental standards.  He also stated that concern for the environment should not overburden the crucial agreement-crafting phase, since it was not relevant to that stage’s central purpose.  Stating that the role of the United Nations should not be to set standards for agreements, he emphasized that parties should themselves choose the provisions by which they would be legally bound.  Additionally, noting that the draft at hand had not changed at all in the last three sessions of the General Assembly, he reasoned that it must not be making progress in resolving the issue its sponsors wanted to address. For such reasons, he had voted no.

Mr. UMER, (Pakistan), in a general statement, explained changes that had been made to the draft on regional and subregional confidence-building (document A/C.1/58/L.18/Rev.1), which would be acted on tomorrow.  For example, following vibrant consultations, the sixth, seventh and eighth preambular paragraphs had been changed.  Where they had previously highlighted dialogue “in the regions”, they now mentioned dialogue among “States concerned”, since certain delegations had expressed the view that it was States, rather than regions, that engaged in dialogue.

Additionally, operative paragraph 1, which had previously called upon Member States to refrain from the use or threat of force in the settlement of disputes, was altered since some delegations had emphasized that force was permitted by the United Nations Charter under certain circumstances.  Operative paragraph 4, which had only dealt with compliance with disarmament and arms control agreements, was broadened to include all types of agreements.  Operative paragraph 5, which could have been read as promoting armament, since it urged military balance between States, was changed to reflect the importance of maintaining a low level of arms.

Because the original operative paragraph 6 had failed to mention unilateral confidence building measures, it was changed to include them.  Additionally, several delegations had found the previous operative paragraph 7, which would have requested the Secretary-General to consult with Member States to be too intrusive.  Therefore, even though he was not personally convinced that the concern was valid, he had changed the draft so that the Secretary-General would now merely seek the views of Member States on the matter.

ANNEX I

Vote on Sixth Preambular Para/Middle East

The sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.23) was retained by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to 2 against, with 11 abstentions as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, 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, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against:  India, Israel

Abstaining:  Bhutan, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Vanuatu

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan

ANNEX II

Vote on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation

The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.23) was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 3 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, 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, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against:  Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States

Abstaining:  Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan

ANNEX III

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament

The draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.47) was approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 43 against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, 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, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, India, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Sweden, Ukraine

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Environmental Norms

The draft resolution on the observance of environmental norms in the implementation of disarmament agreements (document A/C.1/58/L.27) was approved by a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 1 against, with abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, 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, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, 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:  United States

Abstaining:  France, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United Kingdom

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu

* *** *