COMMITTEE REFORM, MULTILATERALISM, SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT ADDRESSED BY TEXTS APPROVED IN FIRST COMMITTEE

Fifty-eighth General Assembly                               GA/DIS/3268

First Committee                                             5 November 2003

22^nd Meeting (PM)

COMMITTEE REFORM, MULTILATERALISM, SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT

ADDRESSED BY TEXTS APPROVED IN FIRST COMMITTEE

The General Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to obtain the views of Member States on ways to improve the effectiveness of the First Committee in dealing with questions of disarmament and related international security issues, according to one of three draft texts approved today by the Committee. 

Prior to approval of the consensus text, which was submitted by the United States, Pakistan’s representative said, while he would join the consensus, he wondered how improvement in the working methods of the Committee would result in a reduction of nuclear weapons.  He had seen for many years now in Geneva a “total reluctance, an absolute rejection” to talk about reducing nuclear weapons or about nuclear disarmament.  Yet, now the Committee was presented with a resolution that talked about threats to international peace and security. 

New and highly deadly weapons were being designed for deployment and use, he continued.  How would improving the methodology of the work of the Committee help its members with respect to that new and more deadly form of nuclear weapons?  Another devastating threat was the phenomenon of occupation, but there was no mention of it in the “revolutionary” draft resolution, nor any mention of the danger posed by countries choosing to work outside the United Nations Charter and no mention of the insidious concept of pre-emptive military action.  All that, and he was now being told that the First Committee should be reformed. 

Another draft resolution approved would have the Assembly, concerned at the “continuous erosion” of multilateralism in the field of arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament, and recognizing that resort to unilateral actions by Member States in resolving their security concerns would jeopardize international peace and security, reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in resolving disarmament and non-proliferation concerns. 

It was approved by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 10 against (Bulgaria, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, United States), with 44 abstentions.  (For details of the vote, see Annex I). 

Speaking on behalf of the European Union after the vote, Italy’s representative said that multilateralism was indeed a core principle in terms of establishing, maintaining and strengthening universal norms and enlarging their scope, and of particular importance in combating new threats of terrorism, as well as persisting security threats, in particular, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means.  Unfortunately, the text contained several elements which the Union could not support, such as its failure to acknowledge the positive results achieved by unilateral, bilateral and plurilateral actions in disarmament and non-proliferation. 

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft decision on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, sponsored by Malaysia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.  By its terms, the Assembly would take note of the report of the open-ended working group to consider the objectives and agenda, including the possible establishment of the preparatory committee, for that special session, as well as requests made for Member States to continue consultations in that regard. 

Statements were also made by the representatives of Thailand, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, India, Cuba, Brazil, Iran, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and South Africa. 

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Thursday, 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 conventional weapons; disarmament machinery; and international security.

From cluster 4, which deals with conventional weapons, a text on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons will be acted upon.  The Committee will also take action on two texts from cluster 7, disarmament machinery.  The first is a draft resolution on improving the effectiveness of the First Committee, and the second is a draft decision dealing with the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. 

Action is also expected on a draft from cluster 10, international security.  It concerns the promotion of multilateralism in disarmament and non-proliferation.

Draft Summaries

Emphasizing the importance of early and full implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, the Assembly would decide to convene a United Nations conference to review progress made in implementing it, in New York for a period of two weeks between June and July 2006, according to the draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.1/Rev.1).

The Assembly would also decide to hold a session of the preparatory committee for that conference in New York for a period of two weeks in January 2006, with a subsequent session if necessary.

By a further term, the Assembly would determine that it would be feasible to develop an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons.  It would also decide to establish an open-ended working group to negotiate such an instrument.  That working group would hold an organizational session in New York on 3 and 4 February 2004.

The draft is sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malawi, Malta, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Expressing grave concern over both existing threats to international peace and security and new threats that have become manifest in the post-11 September 2001 period, the General Assembly would request the Secretary-General, within existing resources, to seek the views of Member States on the issue of improving the effectiveness of the methods of work of the First Committee, according to a new draft on improving the First Committee (document A/C.1/58/L.15/Rev.1), originally submitted by the United States. 

The Assembly would also ask the Secretary-General to prepare a report compiling and organizing the views of Member States on appropriate options, and submit the report to the General Assembly for consideration at its fifty-ninth session.

By a further term, the Assembly would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-ninth session an item entitled “Improving the effectiveness of the methods of work of the First Committee”.

The revised draft is sponsored by Albania, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Switzerland, Tonga, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, United States, and Uzbekistan.

By a draft decision on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.61), sponsored by Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Assembly would take note of the report of the open-ended working group to consider the objectives and agenda, including the possible establishment of the preparatory committee, for that special session, as well as requests made for Member States to continue consultations in that regard.

The Assembly would also decide to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-ninth session the sub-item entitled “Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.”

Convinced that in the globalization era and with the information revolution, arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament problems were, more than ever, the concern of all countries of the world, the General Assembly, according to a draft on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/58/L.26/Rev.1), would reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, with a view to maintaining and strengthening universal norms and enlarging their scope.  It would also reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in resolving disarmament and non-proliferation concerns.

The Assembly would urge the participation of all interested States in multilateral negotiations on arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner, and underline the importance of preserving the existing agreements on arms regulation and disarmament, which constituted an expression of the results of international cooperation and multilateral negotiations in response to the challenges facing mankind. 

It would call, once again, on all Member States to renew and fulfil their individual and collective commitments to multilateral cooperation as an important means of pursuing and achieving their common objectives in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.

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

General Statements

SURIYA CHINDAWONGSE (Thailand) said he supported the draft resolution on improving the effectiveness of the First Committee (document A/C.1/58/L.15/Rev.1) because that would contribute to the broader effort to revitalize the General Assembly.  He hoped that whatever outcome arose from that exercise in the Committee would take into account the general direction in the Assembly, as well as recommendations that might emerge from the recently appointed high-level panel on global security threats, headed by the former Prime Minister of Thailand.

CARLO TREZZA (Italy), on behalf of the European Union, said he fully endorsed L.15/Rev.1, which had been co-sponsored by all Union member and accredited countries.  They were committed to increasing the effectiveness of the working methods of the Committee.  That task could not be settled once and for all, but must be kept under review in order to rationalize the Committee and keep abreast of security challenges that needed to be addressed.  He recalled efforts in 1993 by the then Committee Chairman, from Germany, who presented a proposal for rationalizing the work of the Committee.  He had submitted a resolution on that question, which had been adopted by consensus.  That should remain a point of reference for the task ahead.

He said he advocated an inclusive and focused approach that took into account all security concerns of the Committee’s members.  He was convinced of the need to maintain a balanced agenda.  The Committee should also be able to react to and focus upon today’s immediate security problems.  It was also essential that all delegations should be able to express their main concerns and table resolutions reflecting those.  On that basis, the Union was ready to continue to discuss and deliberate on rationalizing the Committee’s work and communicate to the Secretary-General ways to improve its effectiveness.

Mr. EMMANUEL (Côte d’Ivoire), referring to the draft on improving the work of the First Committee (document A/C.1/58/L.15/Rev.1), hailed that initiative of the United States.  After all, the matter was an important one, which should be addressed in informal consultations and exchanges.  However, he supported the delegation of Indonesia, who had earlier spoken on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and said the issue of making the Committee more efficient should not be dealt with in isolation, apart from the whole General Assembly.

Declaring that he was delighted to see his concerns taken on board in the revised text and that he would not oppose the draft’s adoption, he, nevertheless, stressed that the slow pace of nuclear disarmament, the paralysis of the Conference on Disarmament, and the difficulties faced by such treaties as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), could not be attributed to inefficiency in the Committee.  He added that making the Committee more efficient also meant abiding by existing procedures and refraining from overloading the body with items that were not on the agenda, but instead entrusted to other ad hoc General Assembly bodies.

Mr. UMER (Pakistan), speaking about the same draft, said he agreed that intergovernmental machinery had to be made more effective and efficient.  Nevertheless, certain aspects of the text at hand were problematic.  First, the draft’s purpose was supposedly to improve the effectiveness of the Committee’s methods of work.  However, its first preambular paragraph referred to existing and new threats to international peace and security.  The inclusion of such a term was strange, since “methods of work” only entailed procedural matters, such as the allocation of time and the number of agenda items.  In that regard, he asked the original sponsor of the draft to explain the links between such matters and threats to peace and security, and to clarify to what specific threats it was referring.

After all, he added, many members of the Non-Aligned Movement considered the continued existence of vast piles of nuclear weapons the most serious threat in the world today.  Therefore, he wished to know how the improvement of the methodology of work would result in the reduction in nuclear weapons, especially since he had seen, in Geneva, much unwillingness to even discuss the reduction of such arms.

He also found it odd that other threats, such as the development of new weapons, the devastating effects of foreign occupation, unilateralism, and the improper use of preemptive military force, were not mentioned in the “revolutionary” draft.  After all, many of those dangers challenged the tenets of the United Nations Charter, especially article 51, which only sanctioned the use of force in matters of self-defence.  In that regard, he said it was telling that the draft did not even mention the Charter, and he warned the sponsors that if they were thinking of going beyond that document, they would be doing a great disservice to the United Nations.

Noting that the draft’s first operative paragraph requested the Secretary-General to prepare a report compiling views of Member States, he said that, strangely enough, yesterday, when many of the text’s sponsors had rejected his country’s draft on confidence-building measures (document A/C.1/58/L.18/Rev.1), they had criticized its requests for the Secretary-General to solicit the views of Member States on the matter.  In fact, his delegation had been told that was too intrusive.  Nevertheless, the present draft was asking the Secretary-General to do just that.  That was a case of double standards.

Expressing hope that the initiative would lead to a change in the thinking that prevailed in the Committee, he stated that its adoption should be followed by implementation.  After all, the main problem of the Committee had nothing to do with methodology.  Instead, what was worrying was that the moment the Committee adopted resolutions, no one seemed to care about them.  Because he believed in cooperation, he had not requested a recorded vote on the text.  However, he hoped that, when Member States gave their views, they would make it possible to launch an honest effort to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Committee.

ALFRED MOUNGARA-MOUSSOTSI (Gabon), also speaking on L.15/Rev.1, said he appreciated its authors, whose work was directly in line with reform of the General Assembly.  He would have hoped that the exercise to be embarked upon, namely, improving the Committee’s working methods, would contribute to making strides in the work of disarmament.

Action on Texts

The representative of India commended the sponsors of L. 15/Rev.1 -- the United States delegation -- for submitting an important text.  He also appreciated the constructive approach taken by that delegation in conducting wide-ranging consultations in the drafting stage.  He saw the text in the context of the common objective of the collective strengthening of multilateralism.  He looked forward to addressing the core issue of reform of the Committee, essentially its working methods, and he would actively work towards the objectives of the draft. 

He stressed that he would support the text, as that provided a platform for a much needed discussion.  There was no one magic solution to the problems, but the draft was a platform for furthering the Committee’s work, so that it could make an important contribution to the revitalization of the General Assembly.

Pakistan’s representative, explaining his position before the vote on L.15/Rev.1, said he would go along with the so-called consensus.  He had heard about strengthening multilateralism, but how could multilateralism be strengthened? he asked.  The “high priests of multilateralism” might wish to enlighten us, but he believed that multilateralism could be strengthened by implementing the decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.  Was there any other way of strengthening multilateralism, other than respecting and implementing the decisions of the Security Council? he asked.

He said that what was occurring was “an attempt to play games”.  Those “champions of multilateralism” -- why didn’t they implement the decisions of multilateralism?  How would the draft strengthen multilateralism, unless or until, especially the individual who spoke before him, told us right now in the presence of the Committee, that his country was prepared to implement the decisions of multilateralism.  That would not happen.  There was a basic hypocrisy on that particular question.  There was no magic solution.  Everyone had to work hard and incrementally over time to achieve the desired results.

At the same time, he said, there were certain things that were totally inimical, hostile, and antagonistic to the very essence of multilateralism.  The first was brutal, foreign occupation and the brutal use of force.  Those countries that talked about multilateralism -- if they started implementing the spirit of multilateralism, then “maybe ours might become a better world”.  He had no problem with the draft and would work with its sponsor next year to ensure that the United Nations Charter was respected.  But, he would not allow “the small little games” to be played, whereby he was told about the strengthening of multilateralism, when those very countries had subverted the very decisions of the United Nations and the Security Council. 

The Committee approved the draft on improving the First Committee (document A/C.1/58/L.15/Rev.1) without a vote.

Turning to the draft decision on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.61), the Committee also approved it without a vote.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Cuba said that, with respect to the draft on improving the First Committee, it was imperative to carry out real and effective reform without delay in order to democratize the United Nations.  However, reforming and revitalizing the General Assembly must be a single and integrated process involving the President of the General Assembly.

Declaring that the chief author of the draft had curiously and regrettably sought to force an independent path to reform in the First Committee, he added that that same delegation did not show the same interest in engaging in dialogue on more relevant disarmament-related items, such as the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.  In addition, the draft’s request to include, for the first time, the improvement of the Committee’s work in next year’s agenda, would go against calls to streamline the work of the Committee.  Other Committees might also be affected, since they might be encouraged to include such items on their agendas as well.

Stating that recommendations to improve the Committee’s work must come from broad ranging consultations and consensus, he told delegates that the Committee’s effectiveness depended more on the political will of the Member States than on changing the way delegates and staff members did their jobs.  Also, what was more important at the moment was improving the ability of the United Nations to address nuclear weapons, which were still being incorporated into security doctrines, to help prevent the introduction of new lethal conventional weapons, and to assist in the promotion of outer space as a zone of peace.

Speaking on the same draft, the representative of Brazil said he had joined the consensus, and appreciated the original sponsor’s efforts to take into account other delegations’ concerns.  However, while fully sharing the draft’s grave concern over recent threats to international peace and security, he maintained that no one should lose sight of serious threats that had been around for a long time.  He also remarked that initiatives aimed at improving the First Committee, including basic housekeeping, should not be considered outside broad discussions on revitalizing the General Assembly and United Nations as a whole.  In that regard, he expressed support for the work of the Presidency of the current session of the General Assembly.

The representative of Iran, also speaking about the same draft, said that, since it was the first time the draft had been considered, his delegation had dealt with it constructively and had made its views clear during consultations.  However, he had joined the consensus with the understanding that the text at hand could help further the broader effort of revitalizing the General Assembly as a whole.  Emphasizing that the current draft should have stuck to procedural matters and not touched on substantive issues, he added that, if one was to mention existing threats to international peace and security, as in the first preambular paragraph, items such as nuclear weapons, preemptive attacks, developing “mini-nukes,” and unilateral and lawless uses of force with or without justification, needed to be addressed as high priorities.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution contained in its cluster on international security and entitled “Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/58/ L.26/Rev.1), by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 10 against (Bulgaria, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, United States), with 44 abstentions (Annex I).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Switzerland said his country had always advocated multilateralism in international negotiations, and he thanked the sponsors for reaffirming that principle.  However, one could not exclude the bilateral approach or any other that might help attain the goals in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, where some important bilateral initiatives had made the point. 

He said that approaches at the multilateral, plurilateral, bilateral and national levels were all complementary.  The draft text, however, had not sufficiently reflected that.  Also, Member States should refrain from making unverified charges about non-compliance.  One should investigate whether such accusations were justified or not.  Each State should be able to express doubts about non-compliance with international law.  Accordingly, he had abstained.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Italy said that multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation was a concept to which the Union was fully committed.  That was indeed a core principle in terms of establishing, maintaining and strengthening universal norms and enlarging their scope.  Multilateral cooperation was of particular importance in combating new threats of terrorism, as well as persisting security threats, in particular, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means. 

Unfortunately, he said, the text on promoting multilateralism contained several elements, both in the preambular and operative paragraphs, which the Union could not support.  He had brought to the sponsor’s attention the Union’s concerns on those elements in question and had provided suggestions about how the draft could be improved.  While some suggestions had been incorporated into the text, regrettably, the Union’s fundamental concerns had not been taken into account and the draft retained language that had made it unbalanced. 

The Union believed that unilateral, bilateral, and plurilateral actions in disarmament and non-proliferation could bring, and had brought, positive results, he said.  Among the examples was the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT, which had recognized that.  The text had not given sufficient credit to such measures.  Thus, the Union had not been in a position to support the text, but it remained committed to multilateral approaches and continued to recognize their importance.

The representative of Canada said she welcomed opportunities to promote multilateralism in those fields.  Strong, legally binding multilateral treaties, respected and implemented, were indispensable to common security.  She would have been pleased to have supported the draft, but she could not do so because of some specific problematic elements.  Multilateralism was indeed a core principle in those fields, but it was not “the core principle”, nor the only fundamental means, as implied in the text. 

She said that the shared security system was the “sum of many parts”, all of which were necessary in effective global disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation.  She had also had a problem with the tone of text.  Rather than advancing multilateralism, it offered an overly rigid, restrictive and harmful interpretation.  That was why she had abstained in the vote.

Australia’s representative said he supported effective multilateralism in those fields.  Correctively, the international community should strengthen multilateral instruments to reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons.  Regrettably, however, the draft had failed to acknowledge the legitimate role played by plurilateral, regional, and national efforts.  Nor had he seen continuous erosion in the field.  For those reasons, he had abstained, but his Government would continue to play an active role in international efforts to promote disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation.

Before the meeting adjourned, the representative of Cuba said it was important to maintain multilateralism in international relations.  After all, it was the best way to address disagreements in disarmament and non-proliferation.  Declaring that multilateral disarmament agreements provided mechanisms through which States parties could consult among themselves and cooperate in resolving differences, he stressed that, in contrast, unilateral measures could only jeopardize international peace and security, undermine trust and confidence between States, and shake the foundations of the United Nations.

The representative of South Africa announced, on behalf of her country, Japan, and Colombia, that there would be a meeting of the sponsors of the draft on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.1/Rev.1) in conference room 2 right after the present meeting.

The representative of Haiti briefly took the floor to announce that his delegation had voted in favour of the draft on multilateralism (document A/C.1/58/L.26/Rev.1).

The representative of the United States announced that the Minister of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation and the Secretary of Energy of the United States would address bilateral cooperation in disarmament in the Economic and Social Council chamber at 4 p.m. today.

ANNEX I

Vote on Multilateralism

The draft resolution on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/58/L.26/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 10 against, with 44 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against:  Bulgaria, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, United States

Abstaining:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *