VERIFICATION, NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE AMONG ISSUES, AS FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES NINE DRAFT TEXTS

Fifty-ninth General Assembly

First Committee

20^th Meeting (AM)

VERIFICATION, NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE AMONG ISSUES,

AS FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES NINE DRAFT TEXTS

The General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to explore the issue of verification, including the role of the United Nations, with the assistance of a Panel of Government Experts, to be established in 2006, according to one of nine drafts approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

That draft resolution, entitled “Verification in all its aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification”, was approved without a vote.  By the draft’s terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the critical importance of, and the vital contribution that has been made by, verification measures in non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements.

Speaking in support of the text, the representative of the Republic of Korea said that verification was one of the key issues in disarmament and non-proliferation, and it was time to set up another panel of governmental experts to review the role of the United Nations.  It urged the Committee not to prejudge the work of that panel.

Several other speakers, while going along with the consensus, pointed to deficiencies contained within the text.

The representative of Iran, noted, for example, that the United Nations Disarmament Commission had adopted 16 verification principles and expressed the belief that that Commission was the most appropriate forum for the dealing with the issue of verification.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that verification was best addressed in the context of existing treaties and regimes, and urged that the proposed panel should not undermine the authority of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other multilateral bodies.  It should also not be used as a pretext to delay verification efforts, he said.

Also this morning, the Committee approved a draft on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russian federation, Spain) (Annex V).

The draft resolution would have the Assembly affirm its conviction of the important role of nuclear-weapon-free zones in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and in extending the areas of the world that were nuclear-weapon free.

That vote was preceded by a separate on the last three words of its operative paragraph 5, which reads:  “and South Asia”, approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 2 against (India, Pakistan), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, Bulgaria, France, Israel, Myanmar, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.) (Annex III).

Another vote on operative paragraph 5, as a whole, was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 1 against (India), with 8 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Israel, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex IV).  The paragraph reads:  “Welcomes the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States of the region concerned, and calls upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia.”

Other draft texts approved by recorded votes today were on:  the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), 147 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria) (Annex I); nuclear disarmament, 93 in favour to 42 against, with 18 abstentions (Annex II); and implementing the Ottawa Convention, 140 in favour to 1 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), with 18 abstentions (Annex VI).

The Committee acted without a vote in approving draft texts on:  assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them; the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons; the United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services; and consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures.

Statements were also made today by the representatives of China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, France, India, Israel, Japan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Jordan, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union), Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Syria, and the United States.

The Committee will meet again at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, 3 November, to continue taking action on its remaining drafts texts.

Background

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

Expected to be acted on under cluster 1, which concerns nuclear weapons, are drafts on:  the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); nuclear disarmament; and a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere.  The Committee is also expected to take up draft resolutions from cluster 4, conventional weapons, on:  assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic of small arms and collecting them; implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention); and the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons).

From cluster 6, which concerns confidence-building measures, action is expected on a draft resolution on verification.  Action is also expected on a draft from cluster 7, disarmament machinery.  That text concerns the United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services.  The Committee is also expected to take up a draft resolution from cluster 9, related matters of disarmament and international security, on the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures.

Draft Summaries

Cluster 1

A draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/59/L.25/Rev.1) would have the Assembly stress the importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and conditions, to achieve the earliest entry into force of the Treaty.

By an additional term, the Assembly would underline the need to maintain momentum towards completion of the verification regime.  It would also call on all States to maintain their moratoria on nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, and refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty.

Regarding States that had not yet signed the Treaty, the Assembly would call on them to sign and ratify it as soon as possible.  Furthermore, it would call on all States that had signed but not yet ratified the Treaty, in particular those whose ratification were needed for the instrument’s entry into force, to accelerate their ratification process with a view to the earliest successful conclusion.

The text is sponsored by Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia.

A draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.26/Rev.1) would have the Assembly urge the nuclear-weapon States to immediately stop the qualitative improvement, development, production, and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.

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

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

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

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

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

By further terms, it would call for the conclusion of an international legal instrument or instruments on adequate security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States, and for the early entry into force and strict observance of the CTBT.

The Assembly would also call for the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament at an early date to identify and deal with concrete measures to attain that goal.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

According to a draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/59/L.41), the Assembly would affirm its conviction of the important role of nuclear-weapon-free zones in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and in extending the areas of the world that were nuclear-weapon free.  With particular reference to the responsibilities of the nuclear-weapon States, it would call on all States to support the nuclear disarmament process and work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.

By additional terms, it would:  call upon all concerned States to work together in order to facilitate adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties by all relevant States that had not yet done so; and call upon the States parties and signatories to the Treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba to pursue the common goals envisaged in those treaties, to promote the nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, and to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Guatemala, Indonesia, Liberia, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, South Africa and Venezuela.

Cluster 2

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the illicit proliferation and circulation of and traffic in small arms in the States of the Sahelo-Saharan subregion, the Assembly, by a draft resolution concerning assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/59/L.21/Rev.1), would encourage the establishment of national commissions in the Sahelo-Saharan countries to combat the aforementioned proliferation, and invite the international community to lend support to those commissions.

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

The Assembly would also call upon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of civil organizations to take action to combat the illicit trade in small arms.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali (on behalf of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)), Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo.

A draft resolution on the implementation of the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/59/L.40/Rev.1) would have the Assembly invite all States that had not yet signed the Convention to accede to it, and urge all States that signed but did not ratify it to do so without delay.

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

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

In addition, the Assembly would invite and encourage all interested States, the United Nations, other relevant international organizations or institutions, regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and relevant non-governmental organizations to attend the First Review Conference at the highest possible level and, pending a decision to be taken at the First Review Conference, to maintain the high level of participation in the subsequent Meetings of the States Parties, including their programme of inter-sessional work.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Eritrea, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

According to a draft resolution on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/59/L.54), the Assembly would call upon all States that had not yet done so to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention, its annexed Protocols, and the amendment that extends the scope of the Convention and Protocols to include armed conflicts of a non-international character.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and United Kingdom.

Cluster 6

According to a draft resolution entitled “Verification in all its aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification” (document A/C.1/59/L.33), the Assembly would reaffirm the critical importance of, and the vital contribution that has been made by, verification measures in non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements.

It would also request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a Panel of Government Experts, which would be established in 2006 on the basis of equitable geographic distribution, to explore the issue of verification, including the role of the United Nations, and to submit the Panel’s report to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Canada, Chile, El Salvador, Germany, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation and Sweden.

Cluster 7

By a draft resolution sponsored by Nigeria on United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services (document A/C.1/59/L.4/Rev.1), the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to continue to implement annually the Geneva-based programme within existing resources and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session.

Cluster 9

A draft resolution on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/59/L.38) would have the Assembly once again encourage Member States as well as regional arrangements and agencies to lend their support to the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Secretary-General’s report on that theme.

The Assembly would emphasize the importance of including in United Nations-mandated peacekeeping operations, as appropriate and with the consent of  the host state, practical disarmament measures aimed at addressing the problem of illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in conjunction with disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes aimed at former combatants, with a view to  promoting an integrated comprehensive and effective weapons management strategy that would  contribute to sustainable peace-building process.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti,  Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

General Statements

CHRIS SANDERS (Netherlands), addressing the Committee on behalf of the European Union, spoke about the draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/59/L.25).  Attaching great importance to the universality and early entry into force of the Treaty, he said the instrument, once ratified by all States, would do much to contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and enhance international peace and security.  He drew special attention to the Annex II States, whose ratification was necessary for entry into force, and called on them to sign and ratify the Treaty without delay.  Declaring that the legally binding prohibition of nuclear tests and explosions, as well as a credible verification regime, were vital to global security, he added that, until entry into force, all moratoria on nuclear testing should be upheld.  In conclusion, he stated that he fully supported the draft resolution, which had been co-sponsored by all of the Union’s Member States.

YURI GALA LOPEZ (Cuba) spoke about the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.26/Rev.1).  He stated that he backed the contents of that text, particularly its allusions to the need for a special committee, to meet at the beginning of 2005 to deal with nuclear disarmament and engage in discussions on a programme to culminate in the total elimination of that type of weaponry.  He added that the elimination of nuclear weapons must continue to be the number one priority in the global disarmament arena.

Action on Text

The Representative of Israel, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, on the draft resolution on the CTBT, noted that his country had signed that Treaty in 1996.  That action represented Israel’s long-standing policy of support for arms control and nuclear non-proliferation.  Israel had also played an active role in the CTBT negotiations in Geneva and had contributed to the drafting of that Treaty, as well as played a major role in to help develop the CTBT regime.  His country decided to vote in favour of the draft resolution because of the importance that it attached to the objectives of the treaty, notwithstanding its reservations about its operative paragraph 1. Progress still had to be made on several important issues, including the development of the verification regime.  There was also the need to resolve several salient political issues, in particular the ones relating to the Middle East and South East Asia.

The Committee first took up the draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/59/L.25/Rev.1).  It was approved by a recorded vote of 147 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria) (Annex I).

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.26/Rev.1).  It was approved by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 42 against, with 18 abstentions (Annex II).

Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/59/L.41).  A separate vote was taken on the last three words of operative paragraph 5, “and South Asia”.  The words were retained by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 2 against (India, Pakistan), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, Bulgaria, France, Israel, Myanmar, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.) (Annex III).

A separate vote was the taken on operative paragraph 5 as a whole.  The paragraph reads:  “Welcomes the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States of the region concerned, and calls upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia.”  The paragraph was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 1 against (India), with 8 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Israel, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex IV).

The Committee then voted on the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/59/L.41) as a whole.  It was approved by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russian federation, Spain.) (Annex V).

The representative of Colombia said that, just like last year, his delegation had abstained from the vote on the draft on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere because of the well-known constitutional difficulties that his country faced. Those impediments, which his delegation had discussed transparently over the past four years, had prevented his country from ratifying the CTBT.  Nonetheless, his country remained committed to the goals of the Treaty and was examining how it could overcome its obstacles, with the help of many Member States.  In that context, he expressed hope that Colombia would be able to ratify the Treaty as soon as possible.

The representative of Syria also explained his vote on the draft on the CTBT.  He said he had abstained because the Treaty had ignored his country’s legitimate security concerns.  Coming from a non-nuclear-weapon State, he criticized the fact that the instrument did not provide any safeguards for countries like his against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The text of the Treaty also failed to oblige the nuclear-weapon States to disarm within a specific time frame, and to emphasize the need for a universal Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  Confined to banning nuclear explosions, the CTBT did not even mention the qualitative development of nuclear weapons or the development of new types.  Before concluding, he denounced Israel for continuing to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, while refusing to accede to the NPT.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of his country, the United Kingdom and the United States, explained why he had voted against the draft on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere.  Welcoming the preamble’s acknowledgement of the freedom of the high seas, he wondered why, if the zone would not affect the high seas, which made up the majority of the proposed zone, the draft was necessary at all. After all, nuclear-weapon-free zones already covered land masses in the southern hemisphere. In that context, he questioned the true goal of the ambiguous text.

The representative of India, on the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament, said that his country had unwavering commitment to nuclear disarmament.  While it abstained, that vote did not detract from the country’s strong support for the position of the Non-Aligned Movement on nuclear disarmament or from those of the other sponsors of the resolution.

With regard to operative paragraphs 5 of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, he said that it was contradictory.  It called for nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States of the region concerned, but, at the same time, it also called for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia.  His country had, therefore, voted against the paragraph and abstained from the resolution as a whole.

The representative of the United States said that her country had voted no on the draft resolution on the CTBT.  The United States did not support the CTBT and would not become party to that Treaty.  It intended to maintain its current moratorium on testing and urged other States to maintain such moratorium.

The representative of Kuwait said that he had not been in the room when the draft resolutions on the CTBT and nuclear disarmament were taken up.  His country would have voted in favour of both.

The representative of Japan told delegates that he had abstained from the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament, even though he shared its goals and appreciated its references to the NPT as the cornerstone for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.  After all, the text did not do enough to advance the pursuit of realistic and progressive steps towards nuclear disarmament, laid out with the involvement of the nuclear-weapon States.

The representative of Pakistan explained his vote on the draft on the CTBT.  Stating that he had voted in favour because he agreed with the objectives of the Treaty, he said the instrument’s status would be improved if “major erstwhile supporters” restored their backing.  He added that an improvement in the situation in South Asia would facilitate entry into force.

The representative of Spain explained his vote on the draft on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere.  Declaring that he fully supported agreements governing nuclear-weapon-free zones when they were freely arrived at by all concerned States, he noted that his delegation had voted in favour of previous versions of the draft at hand.  However, this time he had abstained.  Particularly problematic was the draft’s eighth preambular paragraph, which advanced a “new concept”, namely, an international conference of all States parties to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties.  Such a conference was unnecessary and, in fact, moved away from the elements of consensus that were necessary for individual nuclear-weapon-free zones.

The representative of Jordan said that he had not been present during the action on the draft resolution on the CTBT and the nuclear disarmament.  His country would have voted in favour of both texts.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that his country had voted in favour of the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament consistent with its policy to contribute to security on the globe.  The primary task of the international community to preserve security was to ensure complete dismantlement of nuclear weapons.  That required Member States to pay due attention to attempt by certain countries to control the activities of other States under the guise of so-called nuclear disarmament.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking before the vote on the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention, said he would abstain.  Declaring that he fully supported the text’s goals, he regretted that his country was unable to adhere to the Treaty because of the unique situation on the Korean peninsula.  Nonetheless, he stated that his Government would continue its work to help mitigate the horrible effects of landmines throughout the world.  Already, the Republic of Korea had donated funds to two African countries to support their mine action programmes.  He also noted that his country was party to Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/59/L.21/Rev.1).  It was approved without a vote.

Turning to the draft resolution on implementing the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/59/L.40/Rev.1), the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to 1 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), with 18 abstentions (Annex VI).

The Committee then approved the draft on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/59/L.54) without a vote.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Singapore explained her vote on the draft on the Ottawa Convention.  Voicing support for all initiatives against the indiscriminate use of landmines, especially when directed towards civilians, she noted that, in May 1996, her country had declared a two-year moratorium on the export of certain types of landmines.  Shortly after, that moratorium was expanded to include all types of landmines and extended indefinitely, she said.  At the same time, she stressed the importance of States’ legitimate right to self-defence, and reasoned that a blanket ban on all types of landmines would be counter-productive.  She added that her country would continue to work towards finding a truly global solution to the landmine problem.

The representative of China said he had abstained from the vote on the draft on the Ottawa Convention. Acknowledging the international community’s humanitarian concerns, he stated that such worries must be balanced with legitimate self-defence and security concerns.  Declaring that his country endorsed the purposes and objectives of the Convention, but could not adhere to it at the present time, he noted that it had ratified the amended landmine Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and had been active in international demining cooperation and assistance programmes.  He also noted that China would participate as an observer at the upcoming Ottawa Convention review conference in Nairobi.

The representative of Cuba explained his abstention from the vote on the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention.  As a State party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, his country abhorred the indiscriminate use of landmines.  However, having been subjected to four decades of constant military aggression by the greatest military Power in the world, Cuba was unable to give up its landmines, he said.  After all, it needed to preserve its territorial integrity, in accordance with its Charter-enshrined right to self-defence.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he wished to change his vote on the draft on the Ottawa Convention.  Specifically, he wished to abstain, instead of voting against the text.

The representative of the United States said that her country continued to support the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.  It looked forward to actively participating in the work of the Panel when it continued.  Her country had concerns with operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on the Convention.  The Constitution of her country provided that two thirds of the senators voting must give their consent before the United States could ratify a treaty. The United States was now reviewing the Convention for submission to the Senate.  The State Department and other relevant bodies were preparing an analysis for the President to submit to the Senate.  Since the ratification process was still in the initial stages, her country was precluded from agreeing to language that could undermine or circumvent its constitutional arrangement.  On the basis of the understanding that her country could not agree to such language, the country was pleased to join the consensus on the draft resolution.

The representative of Libya said that his country was one the countries that had suffered from mines on its territory.  It had been an arena for fighting during the Second World War with the resulting planting of thousands of mines.  Those mines led to a large number of victims and had also been an obstacle to the development of country.  The Ottawa Convention, in spite of its noble objectives, had not taken into account the security situation of various countries with vast territories, such as Libya, which could not protect their territory by any other means than mines.  It had also not dealt with mines that had been laid previously.  The countries that laid such mines had not removed them and the victims had not received any compensation.  Libya had taken part in meetings of the Convention and had expressed its concerns and called for adequate tools to meet those concerns.  For those reasons, his country had abstained from the vote on the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention.

The representative of Morocco, also speaking on the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention, said that his country was not a signatory to the Convention, for security and national security reasons.  It had always abstained on votes on previous resolutions on that subject. This year, it had decided to vote in favour of the draft resolution.  Morocco would like to reiterate its support and commitment to the objectives and humanitarian principles of the Convention, as well as its commitment to the review process.  Even as a non-signatory, Morocco had always, de facto, followed the Convention’s stipulations.  It had never produced mines and, prior to the Convention, had not deployed mines.

The representative of Myanmar said that, although his country was not party to the Ottawa Convention, it respected the position of all the parties to the Convention.  In principle, it was in favour of banning the export, transfer and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines.  It believed that all States had a right to self-defence, but opposed the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines which caused death and injury to innocent civilians.  That situation was due to the easy availability of those weapons, including to non-State actors.  It was an urgent necessity to prevent that situation.  A sweeping ban was not an effective way to address that situation.  The Conference on Disarmament was the most appropriate forum to deal with the issue of anti-personnel landmines.  It was for those reasons that his country had abstained in the voting.

The representative of India said that, although he had abstained from the vote on the draft on the Ottawa Convention, his country remained committed to a non-discriminatory ban on landmines that took into account the legitimate security concerns of all States, especially those with long, unprotected borders.  He added that work towards a landmine ban would be furthered if non-lethal, cost-effective and technologically advanced alternatives were developed.  For its part, his country had played an active role in the regime surrounding the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and had ratified amended Protocol II.  It had also stopped producing undetectable landmines.

The representative of Mali welcomed the approval of the draft on helping States curb the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  He said its approval by consensus made him realize that the question of small arms and light weapons was important to the whole world, not just West Africa.

The representative of Somalia noted that he had not been in the room during the vote on the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention.  Had he been present, he would have voted in favour of it.

The representative of Nepal, explaining his vote on the Ottawa Convention draft resolution, said he had voted in favour as an expression of unwavering commitment to addressing the problem.  Nevertheless, the legitimate security concerns of States also needed to be taken into account.  Because of such concerns, his country was currently not in a position to sign the Convention.

The representative of the Russian Federation, also explaining his vote on the same draft, said that, although his country agreed with the humanitarian concerns highlighted by the Ottawa Convention, it was not a party to that treaty.  However, it would be prepared to accede when the necessary conditions were created.  In that context, he told delegates that he had abstained from the vote.

The representative of Papua New Guinea stated that he had not been in the room during any of the previous votes.  Had he been present, he would have voted in favour of all of them.

The representative of Republic of Korea, speaking on the draft resolution on “Verification in all its aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification”, said that verification was one of the key issues in disarmament and non-proliferation.  It, however, needed to be carefully reviewed.  His country believed that it was time to set up another panel of governmental experts to review the role of the United Nations in verification, as called for in the draft text.  It did not believe such a panel would be inconsistent with the expected outcome.  The Committee should not prejudge the work of that panel at the present stage.  His country would do its best to contribute to the work of such a panel.

The representative of Pakistan, in explanation of vote before the vote on the same draft resolution, said that verification was essential to promoting confidence among States.  It ensured effectiveness and integrity of agreements.  The concept was, however, integral to arms limitation agreements.  In a spirit of cooperation, Pakistan would go along with the resolution, but it was not convinced that another panel of experts would make a significant contribution at this stage.  Other major agreements where verification had been agreed upon had suffered setbacks, for political reasons.  Those included the CTBT.  Verification could not be operated in a vacuum.

The representative of Iran, in explanation of vote before the vote also on the same draft resolution, said that verification was one of most important issues in the post-cold-war era.  The United Nations Disarmament Commission had adopted 16 verification principles.  While Iran shared the sentiments of the sponsors of the draft resolution, it believed that the Commission was the most appropriate forum for the dealing with issue of verification.  It had extensively deliberated on the issue and should be given the opportunity to pursue the outcome of those deliberations.  Iran hoped that the panel of governmental experts envisaged in the draft resolution would make a positive contribution to that process, while taking into account the work done by the Disarmament Commission and the views of Member States.  His country would join the consensus on the draft resolution.

The representative of Egypt explained his position on the draft resolution on verification.  Voicing support for the United Nations’ role in that field, he, nevertheless, brought up two problematic issues.  First, the report of the last group of experts had already made several recommendations.  However, none of them had yet been implemented.  In that context, he wondered why the international community should bother appointing panels to take up new studies.  Second, in light of calls for streamlining the First Committee’s work and reducing the number of studies, the previous group’s recommendations should be examined by the Committee prior to setting up any new group.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on verification (document A/C.1/59/L.33), and approved it without a vote.

After the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said he supported the draft on verification.  However, he was concerned about the proposed panel of governmental experts, as mentioned in operative paragraph 3.  After all, he remained to be fully convinced that the panel was the most appropriate or effective means to move forward.  Verification was best addressed in the context of existing treaties and regimes and, in that regard, the panel should not undermine the authority of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other multilateral bodies.  It should also not be used as a pretext to delay verification efforts, he said.

The representative of Japan said he had also supported the draft resolution on verification. Nevertheless, operative paragraph 3, which contained the proposal to establish a panel of governmental experts in 2006, was problematic.  Requesting more information on the scope of the panel, he wished to know if it would only target specific types of weapons.  After all, the international community already had the IAEA and the OPCW, and there was already an ongoing programme to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention.  As for missiles, there was no legal international mechanism to ban their use or possession.  Therefore, what kinds of missiles could really be placed under a verification regime?  Stating that it might not be necessary to establish a panel, he stressed that the group’s work must neither undermine nor overlap with existing verification regimes.  Rather, it should enhance them.

The representative of the United States, speaking on the draft resolution on verification, said that her country placed high value on verification and was not opposed to a study.  Her country was in agreement with the need to achieve strict compliance.  It had made proposals for amendment to the present draft resolution that would have corrected certain deficiencies in it, but those proposals had not been incorporated by the sponsors.  The United States would work to make sure that the expert group worked to achieve compliance and enforcement.

The representative of India, speaking on the same draft resolution, said that his country had consistently supported effective verification.  It had proposed a single multilateral verification system under the aegis of the United Nations.  A verification mechanism could not exist in the abstract.  Major disarmament and non-proliferation instruments provided for verification instruments.  His country was in favour of the inclusion of adequate and effective verification.  The Disarmament Commission had studied that issue of verification and had enunciated verification principles.  In view of that work, it might be premature to recommend panel of governmental experts to review the same issues.  However, in view of the call for a consensus on the draft resolution, India had decided to join that consensus.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services (document A/C.1/59/L.4/Rev.1).  It was approved without a vote.

Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/59/L.38*).  It was approved without a vote.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that his country had been absent for the vote on the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention.  The recorded vote had, however, shown it as voting no.  His country would like that record to be corrected.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

The draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/59/L.25/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 147 in favour to 1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, 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, Rwanda, 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, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Botswana, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament

The draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/59/L.26/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 42 against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, 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, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Honduras, India, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malta, Mauritius, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Sweden, Ukraine.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Botswana, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX II

ANNEX III

Vote on ‘and South Asia’/Southern Hemisphere

The words “and South Asia” in operative paragraph 5 in the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/59/L.41) were retained by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 2 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  India, Pakistan.

Abstain:  Bhutan, Bulgaria, France, Israel, Myanmar, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Botswana, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Jordan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Operative Paragraph 5/Southern Hemisphere

Operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/59/L.41) was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 1 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  India.

Abstain:  Bhutan, France, Israel, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Botswana, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Jordan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/59/L.41) was approved by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to 3 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, 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 Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Botswana, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Jordan, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Ottawa Convention

The draft resolution on implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (document A/C.1/59/L.40/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to 1 against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, 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, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

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

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

* *** *