Fifty-ninth General Assembly

First Committee

18^th Meeting (PM)

securityassurancesfornon-nuclear-weaponstates, middle east nuclear proliferation

 

among issues, as first committee approves 21 draft texts

 

Outer Space Arms Race, Disarmament and Development,

Chemical Weapons Convention, Regional Disarmament Also Addressed

(Issued on 28 October.)

Convinced that nuclear weapons posed the greatest threat to mankind and to the survival of civilization, the General Assembly would reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, according to one of 21 drafts approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The draft resolution, approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to none against, with 61 abstentions (Annex III), would also have the Assembly appeal to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and, in particular, on a common formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character.

The Committee also approved a draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and United States), with 8 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago) (Annex II).

By the terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly, noting that Israel remained the only State in the Middle East that had not yet become party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (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.

The approval of the draft was preceded by a vote on the sixth preambular paragraph, which was approved by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Mauritius, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea) (Annex I).

The following drafts were also approved by the Committee by recorded votes:  measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, 165 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Israel, Marshall Islands, United States) (Annex IV); preventing an arms race in outer space, 167 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Israel, United States) (Annex V); conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels, 165 in favour to 1 against (India), with 1 abstention (Bhutan) (Annex VI); and observing environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements, 165 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom) (Annex VII).

Also approved by recorded votes were texts on the relationship between disarmament and development, 165 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 2 abstentions (France, Israel) (Annex VIII); the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament, 101 in favour to 49 against, with 17 abstentions(Annex IX); and the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, 109 in favour to 9 against (Albania, Israel, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom and United States), with 49 abstentions(Annex X).

The Committee acted without a vote in approving draft texts on:  the Chemical Weapons Convention; problems rising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus; regional disarmament; and the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa.

Also acting without a vote, it approved drafts on information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms; the report of the Disarmament Commission; the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament; the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean; the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific; developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security and disarmament; national legislation on transfers of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology; and the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Japan, Argentina, Russian Federation, Syria, Israel, India, Australia, Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union), Canada, United States, Cuba, Egypt, and the United Kingdom.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Thursday, 28 October, to continue taking action on 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, other weapons of mass destruction, outer space, conventional weapons, regional disarmament and security, confidence-building measures, disarmament machinery, other disarmament measures, and international security.

Expected to be acted on under cluster 1, which concerns nuclear weapons, are drafts on:  bilateral strategic nuclear arms reductions; the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East; and effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Action is also expected on drafts from cluster 2, which deals with other weapons of mass destruction.  Those drafts concern the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention), and measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.  From cluster 3, outer space, action is expected on the draft resolution on prevention of an outer space arms race.  The Committee is also expected to take up a draft decision from cluster 4, conventional weapons, on problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus.

Two drafts are expected to be acted upon from cluster 5, regional disarmament and security. Those drafts deal with conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels, and regional disarmament. From cluster 6, which concerns confidence-building measures, action is expected on the following two drafts: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa; and information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms.

Five drafts from cluster 7, disarmament machinery, are also expected to be acted upon.  They concern:  the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament; the United Nations regional centres for disarmament; the Regional Centre in Latin America and the Caribbean; the Regional Centre in Asia and the Pacific; and the report of the Disarmament Commission.

The Committee is also expected to take up six drafts from cluster 8, which deals with other disarmament measures.  Those documents involve:  developments in information and telecommunications; national legislation on transfers of arms, military equipment, and dual-use goods and technology; the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme; observance of environmental norms; the relationship between disarmament and development; and the role of science and technology in international security and disarmament.

From cluster 10, international security, the Committee is expected to act on a draft resolution concerning the promotion of multilateralism in disarmament and non-proliferation.

Draft Summaries

Cluster 1

According to a draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/59/L.37), the Assembly, noting that Israel remained the only State in the Middle East that had not yet become party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (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 un-safeguarded 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.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Convinced that nuclear weapons posed the greatest threat to mankind and to the survival of civilization, the General Assembly would reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure
non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, according to a draft resolution on that topic (document A/C.1/59/L.44).  It would appeal to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and, in particular, on a common formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, El Salvador, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Syria, Viet Nam and Zambia.

A draft resolution on bilateral strategic nuclear arms reductions and the new strategic framework (document A/C.1/59/L.56), sponsored by the Russian Federation and the United States, would have the Assembly welcome the entry into force of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (Moscow Treaty).  It would also recognize specific steps taken by the Russian Federation and the United States to reduce their deployed strategic warheads.

The Assembly would also note with approval that, since the end of the Cold War, the Russian Federation and the United States had halted the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and had committed to eliminate excess fissile material resulting from the dismantling of weapons no longer needed for national security.

Cluster 2

A draft resolution on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/C.1/59/L.12), sponsored by Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, would have the Assembly renew its previous call on all States to observe strictly the principles and objectives of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in war of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and reaffirm the vital necessity of upholding its provisions.  It would call on those States that continued to maintain reservations to the Protocol to withdraw them.

Under the terms of a draft resolution submitted by Poland on implementing the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) (document A/C.1/59/L.16), the Assembly would underline that the Convention and its implementation contributed to enhancing international peace and security.  It would emphasize that its full, universal and effective implementation would further contribute to that purpose by excluding completely, for the sake of all humankind, the possibility of the use of chemical weapons.

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

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

Cluster 3

According to the draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/59/L.36), the Assembly, recognizing that the prevention of an outer space arms race would avert a grave danger for international peace and security, would reaffirm the importance and urgency of preventing such an arms race and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective.

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

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

The Conference on Disarmament would be invited to establish an ad hoc committee as early as possible during its 2005 session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Yemen and Zambia.

Cluster 4

By a draft decision on problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus (document A/C.1/59/L.48), sponsored by Bulgaria, France and the Netherlands, the Assembly would decide to include the topic as an item in the provisional agenda of its sixtieth session.

Cluster 5

By a draft text on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/59/L.46), the Assembly, convinced that conventional arms control needed to be pursued primarily in the regional and subregional context since most threats to peace and security in the post-cold war era arise mainly among States located in the same region or subregion, would decide to give urgent consideration to the issues involved and request the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation or principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Germany, Liberia, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine.

Convinced that endeavours by countries to promote regional disarmament would enhance the security of all States and reduce the risk of regional conflicts, the Assembly, by the terms of a draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.47) would stress that sustained efforts were needed, within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament and under the umbrella of the United Nations, to make progress on the entire range of disarmament issues.  It would call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels.

The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Nepal, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Pakistan and Turkey.

Cluster 6

A draft resolution on the activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/59/L.3) would have the Assembly reaffirm its support for efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at regional and subregional levels, in order to ease tensions and conflicts in Central Africa and to further peace, stability and sustainable development in the subregion.

The Assembly would also emphasize the need to make the early-warning mechanism in Central Africa operational so that it would serve as an instrument for analysing and monitoring political situations in the States members of the Standing Advisory Committee and as a technical body through which the member States would carry out the Committee’s programme of work, adopted in 1992.  It would also appeal to MemberStates and organizations to make additional voluntary contributions to support the Committee’s work.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.

A draft resolution on information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms (document A/C.1/59/L.52) would have the Assembly welcome confidence-building measures in that field already undertaken by MemberStates, as well as the information on such measures voluntarily provided.  It would encourage Member States to continue to adopt and provide information on confidence-building measures and to also engage in a dialogue on such measures.  It would, in addition, request the Secretary-General to establish with the financial support of States in a position to do so, an electronic database containing information provided by Member States and to assist them, at their request, in the organization of seminars, courses and workshops aimed at enhancing the knowledge of new developments in the field.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Kenya, Liberia, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia.

Cluster 7

A draft resolution on the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.9), sponsored by Malaysia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, would have the Assembly reiterate the importance of United Nations activities at the regional level to increase stability and security of Member States, which could be promoted in a substantive manner by the maintenance and revitalization of the three regional centres for peace and disarmament.  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 foundations, to make voluntary contributions to the centres.

By the terms of a draft resolution concerning the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.14), sponsored by Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Assembly would decide to establish an open-ended working group, working on the basis of consensus, to consider the objectives and agenda, including the possible establishment of the preparatory committee, for that session.

It would also request that group to hold an organizational session in order to set the date for its substantive sessions, and to submit a report on its work, including possible substantive recommendations, before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.

A draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/C.1/59/L.18), sponsored by Mexico on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, would have the Assembly reiterate its strong support for the role of the Centre in promoting United Nations activities at the regional level to strengthen peace, stability, security and development.  It would appeal to Member States, particularly those in the region, and to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations to make and increase voluntary contributions to the Centre.

A draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/59/L.20) would have the Assembly reaffirm its strong support for the forthcoming operation and further strengthening of the Centre, and underline the importance of the Kathmandu process as a powerful vehicle for the development of the practice of region-wide security and disarmament dialogue.  It would appeal to Member States, especially those within the Asia-Pacific region, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions, the only resources of the Centre, to strengthen the Centre’s activities and their implementation.

The Assembly would also urge the Secretary-General to ensure the physical operation of the Regional Centre from Kathmandu within six months of the date of signature of the host country agreement.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Japan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka.

A draft resolution on the report of the Disarmament Commission (document A/C.1/59/L.42) would have the Assembly reaffirm the role of the Commission as the specialized, deliberative body within the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery that allowed for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations.

The Assembly would also request the Commission to meet for a period not exceeding three weeks during 2005, namely, from 18 July to 5 August.

The draft is sponsored by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Georgia, Ireland, Israel, Peru, Republic of Korea and Uzbekistan.

Cluster 8

A draft resolution on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/C.1/59/L.2/Rev.1), sponsored by the Russian Federation, would have the Assembly call upon Member States to promote further at multilateral levels the consideration of existing and potential threats in the field of information security, as well as possible measures to limit the threats emerging in this field, consistent with the need to preserve the free flow of information.

A draft resolution on national legislation on transfer of arms, military equipment and dual use goods and technology (document A/C.1/59/L.5), sponsored by the Netherlands, would have the Assembly invite Member States in a position to do, without prejudice to  the provisions contained in Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) of 28 April 2004, to enact or improve national legislation, regulations and procedures to exercise effective control over the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual use goods and technology, while ensuring that such legislation, regulations and procedures were consistent with the obligations of States parties under international treaties.

The Assembly would also encourage Member States to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to the Secretary-General on their national legislation, regulations and procedures on the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual use goods and technology.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements (document A/C.1/59/L.10), sponsored by Malaysia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Assembly would reaffirm that international disarmament forums should take fully into account the relevant environmental norms in negotiating treaties and agreements on disarmament and arms limitation and that all States, through their actions, should contribute fully to ensuring compliance with those norms in the implementation of treaties and conventions to which they were parties.

It would also call on 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.

According to a draft resolution on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/59/L.28), sponsored by Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Assembly would stress the central role of the United Nations in the disarmament-development relationship.

By a further term, the Assembly would urge the international community to devote part of the resources made available by the implementation of disarmament and arms limitation agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the ever-widening gap between developed and developing countries.

By a draft resolution on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.32), the Assembly would affirm that scientific and technological progress should be used for the benefit of all humankind to promote the sustainable economic and social development of all States and to safeguard international security, and that international cooperation in the use of science and technology through the transfer and exchange of technological know-how for peaceful purposes should be promoted.

It would urge Member States to undertake multilateral negotiations with the participation of all interested States, in order to establish universally acceptable, non-discriminatory guidelines for international transfers of dual-use goods and technologies and high technology with military applications.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Fiji, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Viet Nam and Zambia.

By the terms of the draft resolution on the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme (document A/C.1/59/L.51), the Assembly would take note with appreciation of the report of the Secretary General on that topic.

The Assembly would recommend that the programme continue to inform, educate and generate public understanding of the importance of multilateral action and support for it, including action by the United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament, in the field of arms limitation and disarmament, in a factual, balanced and objective manner, focusing on:  continuing to publish the Yearbook in all official languages and posting the 2002 and 2003 English editions on the Internet; continuing to maintain the Disarmament Internet Web site as part of the United Nations Web site and producing new versions of the site in as many official languages as feasible; continuing to intensify interaction with the public, principally non-governmental organizations and research institutes, to help further an informed debate on topical issues of arms limitations, disarmament and security; and continuing to organize discussions on topics of interest in the field of arms limitation and disarmament.

The Assembly would, in addition, invite Member States to make contributions to the Voluntary Trust Fund for the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme with a view to sustaining a strong outreach programme.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Armenia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Liberia, Mexico, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines and South Africa.

Cluster 10

A draft resolution on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/59/L.11), sponsored by Malaysia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, would have the Assembly 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 have the Assembly reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in resolving disarmament and non-proliferation concerns and urge the participation of all interested States in multilateral negotiations on arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner.

By additional terms, the Assembly would underline the importance of preserving the existing agreements on arms regulation and disarmament, which constitute an expression of the results of international cooperation and multilateral negotiations in response to the challenges facing mankind.  It would also 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 Assembly would also request States parties to the relevant instruments on weapons of mass destruction to consult and cooperate among themselves in resolving their concerns with regard to cases of non-compliance, as well as on implementation, in accordance with procedures defined in those instruments, and to refrain from resorting or threatening to resort to unilateral actions or directing unverified non-compliance accusations against one another to resolve concerns.

Action on texts

Explaining his vote on the draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/59/L.6/Rev.1), the representative of Japan said missiles were a source of great concern for him, since they posed a serious threat to global peace and security.  Telling delegates that his country had participated in the panel of governmental experts on missiles, which had been created by last year’s version of the present draft, he had, nevertheless, abstained from the vote on this year’s version, because it did not acknowledge the Hague Code of Conduct or make reference to the links between missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking about the same draft, the representative of Argentina said that the group of governmental experts, although unable to adopt a report, had produced a final draft that had adequately reflected, in a balanced manner, the views of the parties involved.  Declaring that she would have preferred extending the work of the panel by one week, so that it would have had more time to complete its report, she said the new panel should pick up where the previous panel had left off.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he had traditionally supported the draft on missiles, because he believed in addressing that theme in a comprehensive manner.  Declaring that the most appropriate forum for discussing missiles was the United Nations, he lamented that, although the first panel of governmental experts had been successful, the second one had been unable to adopt a report because of the complexity of the issue.  Nevertheless, the second group had still been able to arrive at a list of practical proposals, and it would be a waste of time to dismiss all of that groundwork.

He added that he had also voted in favour of the draft resolution on the Hague Code of Conduct (document A/C.1/59/L.50), because his country was a party to that instrument.  Stating that the adoption of the Code represented the first real step towards countering the threat of missiles, he suggested that further practical steps could include greater universalization of the instrument and the expansion of its field of coverage.

Regarding the amendments to that draft, which were proposed yesterday, he had supported those that encouraged the role of the United Nations and recognized the Code’s adoption as a “first” practical step.  However, he had not voted in favour of the amendment that would have added the word “development”, making the seventh preambular paragraph read, “Mindful of the need to combat the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery”.  That amendment was too indirect, he said.  He added that having different drafts on similar topics had a negative effect and prevented the Committee from moving towards consensus.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking on the resolution on missiles, said that his country abstained from the draft resolution.  His country had participated in the panel of experts.  Regrettably, the panel was not able to reach a consensus in adopting a final report, due to differences among States.  The Republic of Korea did not believe that those differences would dissipate soon.  It was, therefore, premature to envisage establishing a new panel at this stage.

The representative of Syria, on the draft resolution on the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, said that, in his explanation of vote yesterday, he had said that his country had abstained, not voted against the draft, as reported in the press release.

The representative of Israel, in explanation before the vote on the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, said that the resolution was blatantly one-sided and undermined confidence between the States of the region.  Efforts were under way by some countries of the region to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  The imbalance of the resolution stemmed from the fact that the real risk was from those countries that, despite being parties to international treaties, were not honouring their obligations.  It ignored evidence of those abuses.  Many of those countries had refused any form of co-existence with Israel.  The draft text would not serve the region.  It singled out Israel in a manner that no other MemberState was being singled out in the United Nations.  Such singling out did not lend the United Nations any credibility.  Israel’s commitment had been best demonstrated by its support for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region, despite its reservations.

Taking up the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/59/L.37), the Committee first voted on preambular paragraph 6, which reads, “Recognizing with satisfaction that, in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Conference undertook to make determined efforts towards the achievement of the goal of universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, called upon those remaining States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities, and underlined the necessity of universal adherence to the Treaty and of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the Treaty”.

That paragraph was approved by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Mauritius, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea) (Annex I).

The draft as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and United States), with 8 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Trinidad and Tobago) (Annex II).

Turning to (document A/C.1/59/L.44), the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to none against, with 61 abstentions (Annex III).

The representative of India, speaking on the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, said that his country had abstained because, under international law, a State did not have to agree to something that was at variance with its interest.  The draft text contained references to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in a context that was at variance with India’s national interest.

The representative of Australia, speaking on the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, said that his country had abstained.  Australia supported the establishment of a Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction and had called on Israel to join the relevant international treaties.  It, however, had substantial difficulties with the draft, notably its emphasis in singling out Israel with no reference to other countries of the region.  The IAEA had called on Iran with regard to its nuclear programme.  It was regrettable that the draft made no reference to that issue, which was of importance to the international community.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking on the draft resolution on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, said that, as previously stated, his country believed that any non-nuclear State in full compliance with its obligations should be provided with full negative assurances.  It did not, however, believe that such assurances should be extended to all non-nuclear-weapon States without regard to whether they were meeting their obligations.  That point had not been addressed by the draft.

The Committee then took action on the draft resolution on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/C.1/59/L.12).  The text was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Israel, Marshall Islands, United States) (Annex IV).

Turning to the draft resolution on the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/59/L.16), the Committee approved it without a vote.

The draft resolution on preventing an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/59/L.36) was then approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Israel, United States) (Annex V).

The Committee then took up the draft decision on problems rising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus (document A/C.1/59/L.48).  It was approved without a vote.

The Committee next approved the draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/59/L.46) by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against (India), with 1 abstention (Bhutan) (Annex VI).

Taking up the draft resolution on the draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.47), the Committee approved it without a vote.

The representative of India explained his vote on the draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/59/L.46).  He stated that the Disarmament Commission had already adopted norms on that topic, making the present text unnecessary.  Additionally, because his country’s security parameters extended beyond South Asia, he could not accept narrowly defined geographic spaces.  Finally, the Conference on Disarmament should deal with global matters, not regional ones.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/59/L.3).  It was approved without a vote.

The draft resolution on information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms (document A/C.1/59/L.52) was approved without a vote.

The representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union in explanation of the vote on the report of the Disarmament Commission, said that the Commission was an important deliberative body aimed at promoting fruitful, multilateral dialogue in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation.  Its inability to make progress this year had been particularly disappointing.  The Commission should adopt a more constructive and realistic approach to its next phase of work.  The Union reaffirmed its commitment to a successful outcome of the Commission’s work and to every effort to promote topical, concrete and useful recommendations.  That was why it had supported the draft resolution.

The representative of the United States, speaking on the resolution on the report of the Disarmament Commission, requested that the record of the meeting show that her country did not participate.

The representative of Canada said that it was his country’s hope that, next year, the Commission would reach agreement on its work.  Canada was disappointed that, once again, the Commission could not agree on its programme of work this year.  It would like to see a return to a focus on substantive issues.  The Commission could devote a session next year to discussing how it cloud play an effective role.  Canada urged delegations to reflect and commit to active discussion about the functioning of the Commission next year.  The First Committee could not go on adopting hollow resolutions without an effort to come to grips with the Commission’s problems.

The draft resolution on the report of the Disarmament Commission (document A/C.1/59/L.42) was approved without a vote.

The draft resolution on the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.9) was approved without a vote.

The draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/C.1/59/L.18) was approved without a vote.

The draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/59/L.20) was approved without a vote.

Speaking in explanation of his vote on the draft resolution on the report of the Disarmament Commission (document A/C.1/59/L.42), the representative of Cuba said it was regrettable that the Commission had been unable to even begin considering substantive issues this year.  Declaring that the forum must be maintained as a special deliberative body within the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery, he rejected the approach taken by certain delegations, which implied that the Commission could not be effective until its present working methods were changed.  After all, no changes in working methods could ever change the fact that certain countries had displayed a lack of real political will, and much reluctance to pursue nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Egypt, explaining his vote on the same draft, said he regretted that Member States had not responded more favourably to efforts made by the Non-Aligned Movement to break the deadlock in the Disarmament Commission.  Convinced of the important role of the Commission, he lamented that meetings of that body had been wasted on discussing procedural matters.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.2/Rev.1).  It was approved without a vote.

Turning to the draft resolution on national legislation on transfers of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology (document A/C.1/59/L.5), the Committee also approved it without a vote.

The Committee then acted on the draft resolution on the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme (document A/C.1/59/L.51).  It was also approved without a vote.

Taking up the draft resolution on observing environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements (document A/C.1/59/L.10), the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom) (Annex VII).

Turning to the draft resolution on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/59/L.28), the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 2 abstentions (France, Israel) (Annex VIII).

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.32).  It was approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 49 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex IX).

Explaining his vote on the draft resolution on national legislation on transfers of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology (document A/C.1/59/L.5), the representative of Cuba said that, through the framework of international treaties that were legally binding, universal, non-discriminatory and multilaterally negotiated, the world community could guarantee strict global control over such items.  He added that regimes, whose export controls were based on selective discriminatory criteria, posed a serious obstacle to the right of all States to use nuclear, chemical and biological technology for peaceful purposes.  Declaring that the most effective model of import and export controls would be negotiated and implemented in a multilateral framework, he cautioned that multilateral measures must also be supplemented by national mechanisms.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that his country had supported the draft resolution on the relationship between disarmament and development.  The report of the group of experts contained many useful recommendations, which his country supported.  The United Kingdom fully supported the report’s recommendations on small arms and light weapons and agreed to the 2006 conference on transfers of those weapons.  It also supported the report’s recommendations concerning landmines and explosive remnants of war.  It, however, did not accept the suggestion that little evident progress had been made in nuclear disarmament or that the disarmament regime was in doubt.  The United Kingdom was fully committed to its disarmament obligations under the NPT.  His country also believed that the draft did not give sufficient credit to unilateral, bilateral and multilateral disarmament efforts.

The representative of the United States said that her country was not convinced that the draft resolution on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements was relevant to the Committee.  Her country operated under stringent domestic activities.  Concern for environment should not abrogate the negotiation of difficult agreements between States.  It should not be the role of the United Nations to set content for agreements.  The draft resolution had not changed in the last four sessions of the General Assembly.  That meant that it had not generated progress in addressing the issues which its sponsors wished to address.  Her country had voted “no” on the draft resolution.

On the draft resolution on the relationship between disarmament and development, she said that the two, disarmament and development, were distinct and did not lend themselves to being linked.

The draft resolution on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/59/L.11) was approved with a recorded vote of 109 in favour, to 9 against (Albania, Israel, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom and United States), with 49 abstentions (Annex X).

The representative of the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union, said he was committed to the multilateral treaty system, which provided a sound basis for effective non-proliferation efforts.  He added that, because multilateral approaches provided the best way to maintain international order, the Union’s policy was to pursue and strengthen existing multilateral non-proliferation and disarmament norms.  Unfortunately, however, the draft on promoting multilateralism contained unfavourable elements that he could not support, elements of a “serious nature”.  He had shared his concerns with the draft’s co-sponsors, but they had obviously not taken them into account.  The text, thus, remained unbalanced, he said.  Stating that unilateral and bilateral actions in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation could sometimes achieve positive results, he lamented that the draft at hand did not give sufficient credit to such measures.

The representative of Canada, speaking about the same draft resolution, added that she could not support it because, while multilateralism was a core principle of her country’s policies, it was not the only one.  Instead, Canada’s policies were the sum of many parts.  Also, the tone of some of the draft’s segments was not inclusive, too restrictive, and not universal.  Such an approach risked harming the true spirit of multilateralism.  For such reasons, she had abstained from the vote.

ANNEX I

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 6/Middle East

The sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/59/L.37) was retained by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 3 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 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, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, Mauritius, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea.

Absent:  Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation

The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/59/L.37) was approved by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 4 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 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, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Malawi, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Non-Nuclear-Weapon States

The draft resolution on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/59/L.44) was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to none against, with 61 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

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

Absent:

Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Malawi, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on 1925 Geneva Protocol

The draft resolution on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/C.1/59/L.12) was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 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, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Israel, Marshall Islands, United States.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Malawi, Mauritania, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX V

Vote on Prevention of Outer Space Arms Race

The draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/59/L.36) was approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 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, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Israel, United States.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Malawi, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Regional Conventional Arms Control

The draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional level (document A/C.1/59/L.46) was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 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, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India.

Abstain:  Bhutan.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malawi, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Environmental Norms

The draft resolution on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (document A/C.1/59/L.10) was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 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, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  France, Israel, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Malawi, Mauritania, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Disarmament and Development

The draft resolution in the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/59/L.28) was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 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, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  France, Israel.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Malawi, Mauritania, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Science and Technology

The draft resolution on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.32) was approved by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 49 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

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

Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Chile, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Russian Federation, Samoa, South Africa, Tonga, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Malawi, Mauritania, Namibia, Niger, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX X

Vote on Multilateralism

The draft resolution on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/59/L.11) was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 9 against, with 49 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  Albania, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Portugal, 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, Uzbekistan.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Malawi, Mauritania, Namibia, Niger, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

* *** *