PREVENTION OF OUTER SPACE ARMS RACE, MEDITERRANEAN SECURITY AMONG ISSUES, AS DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE APPROVES SEVEN MORE TEXTS

Sixtieth General Assembly

First Committee

19^th Meeting (PM)

PREVENTION OF OUTER SPACE ARMS RACE, MEDITERRANEAN SECURITY AMONG ISSUES,

AS DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE APPROVES SEVEN MORE TEXTS

Drafts Also Address Conventional Weapons, Confidence-Building,

Transparency, Research Institute, Asia and Pacific Regional Centre

The General Assembly, recognizing that prevention of an outer space arms race would avert a grave danger for international peace and security, would call on all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the peaceful use of outer space and to the prevention of an outer space arms race, under the terms of one of seven texts approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

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 arms race, and that there was a need to reinforce that regime and enhance its effectiveness.  The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel).  (For details of the vote, see Annex.)

Following the vote, the United States representative said that there was no arms race in outer space and, thus, no arms control problem to address.  Addressing also the draft on the promotion of transparency and confidence-building in outer space, which had not yet been considered, she said there was unprecedented cooperation in civil and commercial activities in outer space.  Moreover, there was already an extensive and comprehensive system for limiting certain uses of outer space, and the existing multilateral outer space arms control regime already adequately dealt with the non-weaponization of space.

The United States was committed to the peaceful exploration and use of space by all nations for peaceful purposes, but ‘peaceful purposes’ included appropriate defence activities in pursuit of national security and other goals.  Her country took seriously its commitment to carry on all United States activities in the exploration and use of outer space in accordance with international law, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and understanding.  Thus, she saw no reason for international institutions to address a non-existent arms race in outer space.

Acting without a vote today, the Committee approved draft resolutions on:  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); information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms; the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR); strengthening security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region; objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures; and the Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.

Iran’s representative introduced a revised text on the follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed in the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, introduced a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa.

Representatives of the following countries also spoke today:   France; Sweden; Algeria; Japan; Canada; Republic of Korea; India; United Kingdom; and Bangladesh.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 October, to continue its consideration of all draft resolutions and decisions.

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 on texts related to outer space, conventional weapons, regional disarmament and security, other disarmament measures and international security, and disarmament machinery.

Expected to be acted on under cluster 3, which concerns outer space disarmament aspects, is a draft on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.  Action is also expected on drafts from cluster 4, which deals with conventional weapons.  Those drafts concern 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; and information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms.

Action is also expected on a draft from cluster 5, which deals with strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region.  The Committee is also expected to take up a draft resolution from cluster 6, other disarmament measures and international security, on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures.

From cluster 7, which concerns disarmament security, action is expected on the following two drafts:  the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.

Draft Summaries

Cluster 3

Recognizing that prevention of an outer space arms race would avert a grave danger for international peace and security, the General Assembly would call upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, 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, under a draft resolution entitled prevention of arms into outer space (A/C.1/60/L.27).

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 arms race in outer space, 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.

In a related term, the Assembly would reiterate that the Conference on Disarmament had the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements on the prevention of an outer space arms race in all its aspects.

The Assembly would, thus, invite the Conference to complete the examination and updating of the mandate contained in its decision of 13 February 1992, and to establish an ad hoc committee as early as possible during its 2006 session.

It would urge States conducting activities in outer space, as well as States interested in conducting such activities, to keep the Conference on Disarmament informed of the progress of bilateral and multilateral negotiations on the matter, if any, so as to facilitate its work.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Yemen and Zambia.

Cluster 4

According to a draft resolution on 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 (document A/C.1/60/L.48), the Assembly would call on all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties as soon as possible to the Convention and the Protocols thereto, as amended, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, so as to ultimately achieve their universality.

By further terms, the Assembly would request that the Third Review Conference and its preparatory meetings exert maximum effort to promote universalization of the Convention, as amended, and of all its Protocols, including through the holding of regional conferences and seminars.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

According to a draft resolution entitled “Information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms” (document A/C.1/60/L.58), the Assembly would welcome all confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms already undertaken by Member States, as well as the information on such measures voluntarily provided.

The Assembly would encourage Member States to continue to adopt such measures and to provide information in that regard.  It would also encourage them to continue the dialogue on confidence-building measures in the conventional arms field.

It would 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 Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Spain, Suriname, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zambia.

Cluster 5

A draft resolution on the Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/60/L.47) would have the Assembly call upon all States of the Mediterranean region that have not yet done so to adhere to all the multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, thus creating the necessary conditions for strengthening peace and cooperation in the region.

In addition, the Assembly would encourage all States of the region to favour the necessary conditions for strengthening the confidence-building measures among them by promoting genuine openness and transparency on all military matters, by participating, among other things, in the United Nations system for the standardized reporting of military expenditures and by providing accurate data and information to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Jordan, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Poland, Portugal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Cluster 6

A draft resolution on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/60/L.42) would call on Member States to report annually, by 30 April, to the Secretary-General their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data are available, using, preferably and to the extent possible, the reporting instrument as recommended in its resolution 35/142 B or, as appropriate, any other format developed in conjunction with similar reporting on military expenditures to other international or regional organizations, and, in the same context, encourage Member States to submit nil returns, if appropriate.

The Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to, among other things, circulate annually the reports on military expenditures received from Member States, and continue consultations with relevant international bodies, with a view to ascertaining requirements for adjusting the present instrument.

It would encourage Member States to, among other things, continue to provide the Secretary-General with their views and suggestions on ways and means to strengthen and broaden participation in the standardized reporting system, including necessary changes to its content and structure.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay.

Cluster 7

A draft resolution by Argentina on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/C.1/60/L.21), would have the Assembly encourage the Regional Centre to further develop activities in the important area of disarmament and development.

It would appeal to Member States, particularly those within the region, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make and to increase voluntary contributions to strengthen the Regional Centre, its programme of activities and the implementation thereof.

Noting that trends in the post-cold war era have emphasized the function of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific in assisting Member States as they deal with new security concerns and disarmament issues emerging in the region, the Assembly would note the Regional Centre’s important role in assisting region-specific initiatives of Member States and reaffirm its strong support for its forthcoming operation and further strengthening, according to a revised draft text (document A/C.1/60/L.32/Rev.1).

The Assembly, underlining the importance of the Kathmandu process as a powerful vehicle for the development of the practice of region-wide security and disarmament dialogue, would appeal to Member States to make voluntary contributions –- the Centre’s only resources -— to strengthen its programme of activities.

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to provide the Regional Centre with the necessary support, within existing resources, in carrying out its activities.  The Secretary-General would also be urged to ensure the Regional Centre’s physical operation from Kathmandu within six months of the date of signature of the host country agreement.

The text is sponsored by Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam.

Under the terms of a draft resolution on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (document A/C.1/60/l.2), the Assembly would reiterate its conviction that the Institute should continue to conduct independent research on problems relating to disarmament and security and to undertake specialized research requiring a high degree of expertise.  It would ask all Member States to continue to make financial contributions to the Institute.

The Assembly would recommend that the Secretary-General implement the relevant recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and decisions of the Board of Trustees, and continue to seek ways to increase the funding of the Institute, within existing resources.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey.

Statement

JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIERE ( France), speaking on the draft resolution on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (document A/C.1/60/L.2), said the Chairman of the First Committee was exceeding his authority.  A decision about the text was expected yesterday, but then postponed until today.  Now the Chairman again wanted to postpone action.  He believed that if an oral statement on budget implications was given to the Chairman by the end of the meeting, action on the draft should proceed.

Introductions of Drafts and Revisions

HAMID BAEIDINEJAD ( Iran) introduced the revised text entitled, “Follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed in the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)” (document A/C.1/60/L.38/Rev.2).  Adoption in 1995 of principles and objectives for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as the decision for strengthening the NPT review process, had been among the most important made in the Treaty’s history, especially when considering that those decisions had been made in close association with the decision to extend the Treaty indefinitely.  There had been a clear understanding that the latter decision had been made in connection with the decision to promote nuclear disarmament negotiations, in accordance with article VI of the NPT.  The decisions made in the context of the 2000 NPT review had been made in the context of States parties’ aspiration to promote nuclear disarmament.

He said that the practical steps for advancing that process had provided the fundamental basis for achieving nuclear disarmament.  Unfortunately, however, those practical steps remained unimplemented.  The actions by some nuclear-weapon States in developing new nuclear weapons doctrines and strategies were in defiance of those principles and jeopardized implementation of those practical steps.  Those nuclear-weapon States, contrary to their obligation to reduce their nuclear arsenals, had embarked on an extensive programme to increase their capacity to use nuclear weapons more objectively.  His draft resolution concentrated on the agreements made in 1995 and 2000.  Following extensive consultations on the text, he had decided to remove certain concerns, especially regarding the establishment of an ad hoc committee for following up the NPT disarmament obligations, given the budgetary implications and possible interference with the NPT review process.

Thus, he said, for the purpose of focusing on the main thrust of the draft, namely following up the 1995 and 2000 disarmament obligations, he had “changed and modified” operative paragraph 4 to read, as follows:  “urges the States parties to the NPT to follow up the implementation of the nuclear disarmament obligations under the Treaty and agreed in the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences within the framework of the 2010 NPT Review Conference and its Preparatory Committees”.

CHUKA UDEDIBIA ( Nigeria), on behalf of the African Group, introduced the draft resolution United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1 /60/L.41).  The resolution was submitted in recognition of the important role that Regional Centre could play in promoting peace, security and arms control and disarmament at the regional level.  Regrettably, the Centre had been carrying out its mandate under very strenuous financial and operational difficulties.  The most worrisome development regarding the Centre was the report by the Secretary-General that its future looked bleak, due to its lack of reliable resource of funding that would ensure the sustainability of its operations.  Effort taken to mobilize the necessary resources for the cost of the Centre yielded very few dividends when compared to its needs.  There was an urgent need for more financial contributions from the donor community to enable the Centre to deal with the increasing challenges of peace, security and disarmament in Africa.

There was also a need, he said, to review the mandate and programme of the Regional Centre in the light of developments in the field of peace and security in Africa since its establishment.  Furthermore, there was the need to establish close cooperation between the Regional Centre and the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, as well as with the relevant United Nation bodies and programmes in and for Africa, for greater effectiveness.  In consideration of the problems besetting the Regional Centre, the draft resolution requested the Secretary-General to establish, within existing resources, a consultative mechanism of interested States, for the reorganization of the Regional Centre and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session.

He said it was envisaged that the views of the consultative mechanism on all those issues would form part of the Secretary-General’s report requested for in operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution.  The African Group believed that the consultative mechanism would represent a major step towards enhancing the effectiveness of the Regional Centre, as well as in attracting requisite funding for its operational activities.  The draft resolution appealed to all States, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions in order to strengthen the programmes and activities of the Regional Centre and facilitate their implementation.  It appealed to the Regional Centre, in cooperation with the African Union, regional and subregional organizations by the African States, to take steps to promote the consistent implementation of the 2001 United Nations Programme of Action against illicit small arms trade.

Action on Texts

The Committee approved the draft resolution on prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/60/L.27) by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel).  (See Annex)

The United States representative spoke after the vote on the draft on preventing an outer space arms race, as well as on the text on promotion of transparency and confidence-building in outer space (document A/C.1/60/L.3), which had not yet been considered.  There was no arms race in outer space, and thus no arms control problem to address.  Instead, there was unprecedented cooperation in civil and commercial activities, as illustrated by the United Nations cooperation with China prior to and during China’s recent manned space mission.  There already existed an extensive and comprehensive system for limiting certain uses of outer space.  The existing multilateral outer space arms control regime already adequately dealt with the non-weaponization of space.

She said the United States was committed to the peaceful exploration and use of space by all nations for peaceful purposes.  Peaceful purposes, however, included appropriate defence activities in pursuit of national security and other goals.  Her country took seriously its commitment to carry on all United States activities in the exploration and use of outer space in accordance with international law, including the Outer Space Treaty and the United Nations Charter, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and understanding.  Thus, she saw no reason for international institutions to address a non-existent arms race in outer space.

Turning to the revised draft on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/60/L.48), the Committee Secretary, Cheryl Stoute, read out the budgetary implications.  Then, the Committee adopted the text without a vote.

Also acting without a vote, the Committee adopted the resolution on information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms (document A/C.1/60/L.58).

For the record, Sweden’s representative said her delegation had been the original co-sponsor to the draft on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and not an additional co-sponsor.

When the Committee turned to regional disarmament and security, Algeria’s representative said that the draft resolution on strengthening peace and security, and cooperation in the Mediterranean region had achieved consensus in the past, and he hoped for it to continue to do so.  He attached particular importance to the text, which, along with the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, was a consensual text on the Mediterranean region.  Consensus on the draft this year would send a strong message to those who had been working for the upcoming critical event in the region, namely the first summit of European/Mediterranean partners.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union on draft resolution entitled Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/60/L.47), said the acceding countries Bulgaria and Romania, the candidate countries Turkey and Croatia, the countries of the Stabilization and the Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with the explanation of vote.  The Union welcomed the resolution, which all Member States had co-sponsored.  As stated in the Union strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction adopted by leaders in December 2003, security in Europe was closely linked to security and stability in the Mediterranean.  The resolution also recognized that prospects for closer Euro-Mediterranean cooperation in all spheres could be enhanced by positive developments worldwide, in particular Europe, in the Maghreb and in the Middle East.

He said amongst security issues of concern to Mediterranean countries, the Union had taken a particular interest in the areas of terrorism.  The Union had proposed a code of conduct to combat drug trafficking, organized crime and illegal human trafficking, and called on partners to combat illegal immigration and to deepen dialogue with countries of origin and transit.  The Barcelona or Euromed process, launched in 1995, as the Mediterranean dimension of the Union’s external policy, had made a major contribution to the establishment and development of a global partnership between the Union, its member countries and the Mediterranean partners.  The Union attached particular importance to the goal of transforming the Mediterranean into a sea of peace, stability, cooperation and development, as well as, above all, security.  In the context of working towards strengthening security and stability in that crucial region, the European Union welcomed Libya’s decision to eliminate all material, equipment and programmes, which lead to the production of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, together with the practical steps to implement that decision it had undertaken since.

The draft resolution on strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/60/L.47) was then approved by the Committee without a vote.

The representative of the United States said the revision to A/C.1/60/L.1, the draft resolution on compliance with non-proliferation arms limitation and agreements, was about to be issued.  The United States had consulted widely on the text of that resolution and had listened carefully to the views of a variety of delegations.  The comments the United States received were carefully considered.  The revised text contained extensive changes that took into account as many of those comments as possible.  There was no more important time than now for the First Committee to express the strongest endorsement for compliance.

The Committee then approved a draft resolution on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/60/L.42) without a vote.

After the resolution was adopted, the representative of Canada, said it was a procedural point, but he asked if the Committee was going to act on the resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/60/L.41).   Canada said that, as a general principle, delegations should have 24 hours notice before being asked to take action on a resolution and, in light of that, he asked that it be deferred until tomorrow to allow delegates to ask their capitals.

The representative of Nigeria said his delegation had asked for the floor before Canada, so his request for the floor was not to respond to the issue Canada raised, but he said the African Group had no problem in considering the resolution tomorrow.  Concerning his original purpose, he wanted to correct an error, an omission in the resolution that related to preambular paragraph 5.  It should read “Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General, in which it was stated that the Regional Centre continued to carry out its mandate under very strenuous financial and operational difficulties.”

The representative of Japan said he would like to make a statement on draft resolution one on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/60/L.32/Rev.1).  Japan had co-sponsored the resolution because it attached great importance to the Centre.  But, its support for the resolution should not be regarded as approval for how slow progress in the Centre was moving.  Clearly, little substantive progress had been made.  That the same language had been used several times was further evidence of that regrettable fact.  The unanimous adoption should be understood as reflection of high expectations Member States held for the actual implementation of the resolution.  And, if necessary, the beginning for a small group of interested States sort out the problems.  His delegation would revisit the issue at the First Committee next year to examine the progress.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, said his country had strongly supported the work of the Centre.  He was pleased to note that the Regional Centre had carried out its responsibilities successfully, and he wanted to lend strong support to the aim of its effective functioning.  It took on an increasingly important role under the changing security environment.  But, the location of the Centre remained pending.  Relocation at the earliest possible date would be in the best interests of Member States.

The Secretary of the First Committee, Cheryl Stoute, made an oral statement on the programme budgetary implications of the draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/60/L.32/Rev.1).

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (A/C.1/60/L.32/Rev.1) without a vote.

Next, India’s representative took the floor in support of the draft resolution on the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) (document A/C.1/60/L.2).  She said that the UNIDIR was the brain trust of the United Nations disarmament machinery.  It helped to focus expertise on critical disarmament and security issues of abiding and contemporary interest, and it catalyzed relevant issues on the global disarmament agenda.  Besides, its publications were most useful and instructive.

The representative of Bangladesh added his name as a co-sponsor.

Acting without a vote, the Committee then approved the draft resolution entitled “Twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research” (document A/C.1/60/L.2).

Explaining his position on that text, Japan’s representative said he highly appreciated the Institute’s work, which helped his own country in the disarmament field.  Regarding the text’s budgetary implications, however, implementation of the recommendations concerning the OIOS and the Board of Trustees should be very carefully considered.  He sincerely hoped the draft’s adoption would not cause an increase in the 2006-2007 regular annual United Nations budget, or of any future such budgets.

The United States representative said it would be helpful to have the oral statements on programme budget implications ahead of time and in writing.

ANNEX

Vote on Outer Space Arms Race

The draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/60/L.27) was approved by a recorded vote of 160 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, 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, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Israel.

Absent:  Bahamas, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record