TOTAL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, TRACING SMALL ARMS AMONG ISSUES ADDRESSED AS DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE ADOPTS 10 DRAFT TEXTS

Sixtieth General Assembly

First Committee

20^th Meeting (PM)

TOTAL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, TRACING SMALL ARMS AMONG ISSUES

ADDRESSED AS DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE ADOPTS 10 DRAFT TEXTS

(Issued on 27 October 2005.)

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) focused its attention today on key security issues emanating from both conventional and unconventional weapons, approving 10 draft texts, including one on a renewed determination to eliminate nuclear weapons, and another endorsing a global instrument to mark and trace small arms and light weapons.

A draft decision on marking and tracing, adopted by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to none against, with 25 abstentions, would recommend that the General Assembly adopt the draft International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, agreed by a Working Group set up in early 2004 to elaborate such an instrument.  (For details of the vote, see Annex IV.)

Consensus was achieved in June 2005 on a text, which defined its purpose as, among other things, facilitating international cooperation and assistance in marking and tracing and complementing existing bilateral, regional and global agreements to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit small arms trade, while not restricting States’ right to acquire, manufacture, transfer and retain those arms for their self-defence and security needs, as well as for their capacity to participate in peacekeeping operations, in a manner consistent with the United Nations Charter.

Despite clear support for the decision today to recommend that the General Assembly adopt the instrument, several delegations took the floor to explain their abstention in the voting.   Jamaica’s speaker said her delegation was profoundly disappointed that the Working Group had not produced a more substantive and legally-binding instrument.  By not imposing strong enough obligations on the producer countries, the instrument had not provided the reinforcement needed in the fight against the illicit small arms trade.  Its non-binding nature and voluntary implementation would do little to stem the illicit arms traffic.

A related draft resolution, which would have the Assembly call on States to implement the International Instrument and decide to establish a group of governmental experts no later than 2007 to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit small arms brokering, was approved without a vote.

Prior to its approval, the Committee decided to retain operative paragraph 2, which calls on States to implement the instrument, by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Jamaica, Mexico) (Annex V).

Mexico’s representative explained his abstention by saying that the paragraph did not make any reference to existing regional and universal instruments, binding in nature, on the marking and tracing of those weapons.  He was obliged to observe the highest of standards on marking and tracing, so he could not agree to instruments that were not only not legally binding, but agreed to “least common denominator standards”.  He had suggested such amendments, but they had been rejected by the co-sponsors, who, in a “highly irregular” procedure, had said that, if the delegation could not guarantee acceptance of the amendments by each and every Member State, they could not be incorporated into the text.

On nuclear disarmament, a draft resolution submitted by the New Agenda Coalition, by which the Assembly, noting the growing concern at the lack of implementation of binding obligations and agreed steps towards nuclear disarmament, would call on all States to comply fully with commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and not to act in any way that may be detrimental to either cause, or that may lead to a new nuclear arms race, was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 5 against (France, India, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 19 abstentions (Annex II).  (The New Agenda Coalition includes Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden.)

Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, a separate recorded vote was taken on operative paragraph 4, which calls on States parties to spare no efforts to achieve the universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and urges India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States promptly and without conditions.  The Committee voted to retain that provision by 148 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Bhutan, Cameroon, Federated States of Micronesia, Indonesia, Jamaica, Mauritius, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex I).

An updated draft resolution, on the total elimination of nuclear weapons, submitted by Japan was approved today by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 2 against (India, United States), with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan) (Annex III).

By its terms, the Assembly, convinced that every effort should be made to avoid nuclear war and nuclear terrorism, would stress the need for a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination in a way that promoted international stability, based on the principle of undiminished security for all.

Also by recorded vote today, texts were approved on:  implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace, with 121 in favour, 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States) and 44 abstentions (Annex VI); promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, with 116 in favour to 6 against (Albania, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Latvia, United Kingdom, United States), with 48 abstentions (Annex VII); and observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control, with 167 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Israel and United Kingdom) (Annex VIII).

Acting without a vote, drafts were approved on:  measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security; and convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.

Representatives of the following countries spoke today:  the Russian Federation; India; South Africa (on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition) Egypt; Japan; Spain; Zimbabwe; Canada; Cuba; Colombia; France; Guyana; Jordan; Norway; Pakistan; Sierra Leone; Saint Vincent and Grenadines; Slovakia; Syria; United Kingdom; United States; Uruguay, on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR); Iran; and Venezuela.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Friday, 28 October, to continue taking action on all disarmament and security 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 texts related to nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons, regional disarmament and security, other disarmament measures and international security and disarmament machinery.

Expected to be acted on under cluster 1, which concerns nuclear weapons, are drafts on “Towards a nuclear-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments”, the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty and renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  Action is also expected on a draft from cluster 2, which deals with other weapons of mass destruction, on measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

From cluster 4, which deals with conventional weapons, action is expected on three drafts.  Those drafts concern: addressing the negative humanitarian and development impact of the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons; an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons; and the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.

Action is also expected on a draft from cluster 5, which deals with regional disarmament and security, on implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace.  The Committee is also expected to take up drafts on review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security, promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, and observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control.

Expected to be acted on under cluster 7, which deals with disarmament machinery, are drafts entitled Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament and the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament.

Draft Summaries

Cluster 1

Noting the growing concern at the lack of implementation of binding obligations and agreed steps towards nuclear disarmament, the Assembly would call on all States to comply fully with commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, and not to act in any way that may be detrimental to either cause or that may lead to a new nuclear arms race, according to a draft resolution submitted by the New Agenda Coalition entitled Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments (document A/C.1/60/L.4).

The Assembly would also call on all States to spare no efforts to achieve universal adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and would urge India, Israel and Pakistan, which were not yet parties to the Treaty, to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States promptly and without conditions.  By a further term, the Assembly would call on the nuclear-weapon States to accelerate the implementation of the practical steps towards nuclear disarmament that were agreed upon at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

The New Agenda Coalition includes Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden.  Additional cosponsors include Austria, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guyana, Iraq, Liberia, Malta, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Under the terms of a draft resolution sponsored by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of African States (document A/C.1/60/L.8), the Assembly would call on African States that had not yet done so, to sign and ratify the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) as soon as possible so that it may enter into force without delay.

The Assembly would also all on the African State parties to the NPT that have not yet done so to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) pursuant to the Treaty, thereby satisfying requirements of article 9 (b) of and annex II to the Treaty of Pelindaba when it enters into force.  It also called on those States to conclude additional protocols to their safeguards agreements on the basis of the Model Protocol approved by the Agency’s Board of Governors on 15 May 1997.

It would express its appreciation to the nuclear-weapon States that have signed the Protocols that concern them, and call on those that have not yet ratified the Protocols concerning them to do so as soon as possible.

Under a related term, the Assembly would call on the States contemplated in the Treaty’s Protocol III to take all necessary measures to ensure the speedy application of the Treaty to territories for which they are, de jure or de facto, internationally responsible and that lie within the limits of the geographical zone established in the Treaty.

Convinced that every effort should be made to avoid nuclear war and nuclear terrorism, the General Assembly would stress the need for a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used, and to facilitate the process of their total elimination in a way that promotes international stability, based on the principle of undiminished security for all, according to a draft resolution entitled “Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons” (document A/C.1/60/L.28).

The Assembly would call for the nuclear-weapon States to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems in ways that promoted international stability, based on the principle of undiminished security for all.

It would reaffirm the importance of the universality of the NPT to comply with their obligations under all its articles, and stress the importance of an effective treaty review process.

By a related term, the Assembly would call on States not parties to the NPT to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States without delay and without conditions and pending their accession, to refrain from all acts that would defeat the Treaty’s objective and purpose, and to take practical steps in its support.

The Assembly would encourage further steps leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under the NPT’s article VI, including deeper reductions in all types of nuclear weapons.  It would emphasize the importance of applying irreversibility and verifiability, as well as increased transparency in a way that promotes international stability and undiminished security for all, in the process of working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.

It would urge all States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) at the earliest opportunities with a view to its early entry into force.  It would stress the importance of maintaining existing moratoriums on nuclear-weapon test explosions pending the Treaty’s operation, and reaffirm the importance of the continued development of the CTBT’s verification regime, including the international monitoring system, which would be required to provide assurance of compliance.

Among its other terms, the text would have the Assembly:  encourage the Russian Federation and the United States to fully implement the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, which should serve as a step for further nuclear disarmament, and to undertake nuclear arms reductions beyond those provided for by the Treaty; further encourage States to pursue efforts contributing to the reduction of nuclear weapons-related materials; emphasize the importance of the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and its early conclusion; and call on all nuclear-weapon States not parties to the NPT to declare moratoriums on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

The Assembly would also:  call on all States to redouble their efforts to prevent and curb the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means; stress the importance of further efforts for non-proliferation, including the universalization of the Model Additional Protocol to the safeguards agreements of the IAEA; and encourage all States to undertake concrete activities to implement the recommendations in the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education (document A/57/124).

The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Finland, Guatemala, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, Nepal, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Paraguay, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Spain, Switzerland Thailand, Timor-Leste and Ukraine.

Cluster 2

Deeply concerned by the growing risk of linkages between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, a draft resolution on measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction (document A/C.1/60/L.51) would call on all Member States to support international efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring mass destruction weapons and their delivery means.

It would urge all Member States to take and strengthen national measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, their delivery means and materials and technologies related to their manufacture, and invite them to inform the Secretary-General, on a voluntary basis, of the measures taken in this regard.

The Assembly would invite all Member States to consider signing and ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism to enable its early entry into force.

The draft resolution is by Afghanistan, Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, India, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom and Zambia.

Cluster 4

According to a new revised text tabled by the Netherlands on addressing the negative humanitarian and development impact of the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/60/ L.34/Rev.1), the Assembly would call on all States to more effectively address the humanitarian and development impact of the illicit small arms and their excessive accumulation, particularly in conflict or post-conflict situations.

The above provision includes the following steps:  developing comprehensive armed violence prevention programmes, where appropriate, integrated into national development strategies, including poverty reduction strategies; and building on States’ and international and regional organizations’ commitment to seriously consider rendering assistance, such as small arms funds, in order to support implementation of measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade.

Also:  encouraging United Nations peacekeeping operations to address the safe storage and disposal of small arms and light weapons as an integral part of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes; systematically including national measures to regulate small arms and light weapons in longer term post-conflict peace building strategies and programmes; and ensuring that those activities take full account of women’s roles and that the needs of women and girl combatants and dependants be addressed in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, and that the commitment to promote and protect children’s rights and welfare in armed conflict.

Additional co-sponsors are:  Albania, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Finland, Germany, Liberia, Luxembourg Mali, Mexico, Niger, Norway, Romania Slovenia, Timor-Leste and Zambia.

According to a draft decision on an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/60/L.55), the Assembly would decide to adopt the resolution contained in the Annex to the Report of the Open-ended Working Group (document A/60/88 and Corr.2).

The draft decision is by Angola, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Ghana, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Papa New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Sweden, Thailand, Timor-Leste, The Former Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

According to a draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/60/L.57), the Assembly would call upon all States to implement the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, contained in the Annex to the Report of the Open-Ended Working Group.

The Assembly would decide to establish a group of governmental experts, appointed by the Secretary-General on the basis of equitable geographical representation, commencing after the Review Conference and no later than 2007, to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons in three sessions of one week’s duration each, and to submit the report on the outcome of its study to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session.

The draft resolution is by Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Japan, Kazakhstan, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen and Zambia.

According to an Indonesian draft resolution on implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (document A/C.1/60/L.19), the Assembly would reiterate its conviction that the participation of all permanent members of the Security Council and the major maritime users of the Indian Ocean in the work of the ad hoc committee is important and would greatly facilitate the development of a mutually beneficial dialogue to advance peace, security and stability in the Indian Ocean region.

The Assembly would request the Secretary-General to continue to render, within existing resources, all necessary assistance to the ad hoc committee, including the provision of summary records.

Cluster 6

By a draft decision sponsored by Indonesia on behalf of the movement of non-aligned countries on review of the implementation of the Declaration on the strengthening of International Security, the Assembly would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session (document A/C.1/60/L.13).

Concerned at the continuous erosion of multilateralism in the field of arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament and recognition that a resort to unilateral actions by Member States in resolving their security concerns would jeopardize international peace and security, a draft resolution by Indonesia on behalf of the non-aligned movement would have the Assembly urge the participation of all interested States in multilateral negotiations on arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner (document A/C.1/60/L.14).

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

It would request the States parties to the relevant instruments on weapons of mass destruction to consult and cooperate among themselves in resolving their concerns with regard to cases of non-compliance, as well as on implementation, in accordance with the procedures defined in those instruments, and to refrain from resorting or threatening to resort to unilateral actions or directing unverified non-compliance accusations against one another to resolve their concerns.

A draft resolution by Indonesia on behalf of the movement of non-aligned countries on observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (document A/C.1/60/L.15), the Assembly would call upon Member States to adopt unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral measures so as to contribute to ensuring the application of scientific and technological progress within the framework of international security, disarmament and other related spheres, without detriment to the environment or to its effective contribution to attaining sustainable development.

It would reaffirm that international disarmament forums should take fully into account the relevant environmental norms in negotiating treaties and agreements on disarmament and arms limitation, and that all States, through their actions, should contribute fully to ensuring compliance with the aforementioned norms in the implementation of treaties and conventions to which they are parties.

Cluster 7

A draft decision by Indonesia and Antigua and Barbuda entitled convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/60/L.17) would have the Assembly decide to include that item on the provisional agenda of its sixty-first session.

Another draft resolution by Indonesia on behalf of the movement of non-aligned countries on the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament (document A/C.1/60/L.18) would have the Assembly reiterate the importance of the United Nations regional activities to increase the stability and security of its Member States, which could be promoted in a substantive manner by the maintenance and revitalization of the three regional centres for peace and disarmament.

The Assembly would appeal to Member States in each region, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations to make voluntary contributions to the regional centres in their respective regions to strengthen their activities and initiatives.

Action on Drafts

Speaking before the votes on several nuclear weapons-related drafts, the representative of the Russian Federation, concerning the draft resolution on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/60/L.28) prepared by Japan, said he had provided detailed material to the First Committee on his position on nuclear disarmament.  Members should not underestimate the strides made in that area.  He was prepared to adopt a balanced approach to the issue.

India’s representative, explaining its vote on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free world (document A/C.1/60/L.4), said he remained committed to the goal of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, and he shared the view that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were mutually reinforcing.  The best and most effective non-proliferation measures would be credible, time-bound, global, non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament.  Given that the resolution strove to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he would have preferred a reference to security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States and the reduction of nuclear dangers, through de-alerting and other measures, as important interim steps towards freeing the world of nuclear weapons.  Yet, those and other proposals in the resolution adopted last year had not been reflected in the current text.

He said he could not accept the call to accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State.  Moreover, in urging India to do so promptly and without conditions, the draft moved away from the principle of not referring to States not party to a treaty by name.  No legal obligation could be imposed on a country without its sovereign consent.  His objections to the 2000 NPT Review Conference were also well known.  Thus, he was constrained to vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of South Africa, on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition ( Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and South Africa), took the floor to explain his vote on Japan’s draft.  He said that the Committee must send a strong message in pursuit of the objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world.  That was particularly relevant in light of the failure of the 2005 NPT review and the World Summit, the latter with respect to inclusion of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.  The sixtieth anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki further underscored the need for a renewed determination to realize the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world.  A need also existed for greater coherence and for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  In that context, and without prejudice to future positions, the Coalition would vote in favour of the Japanese text, notwithstanding its preferences that it should contain strong references to the practical steps and unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear-weapon States to achieve nuclear disarmament, as agreed in 2000.

Egypt’s representative said that some elements had contributed to changing his vote this year on Japan’s draft.  He thanked the delegation for taking into consideration the numerous points that Egypt’s delegation had stressed should be incorporated into the draft.  Despite the fact that the text still did not fulfil all of his wishes, given that it was being considered in the sixtieth anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, and given Egypt’s solidarity with Japan, he had decided to change his mode of voting this year from abstention to ‘in favour’.  He did not oppose strengthening the safeguards system of the IAEA, nor did he oppose the contents of the Additional Protocol.  However, he had reservations about focusing the international community on that.  His position was governed by two main factors:  acceding to the Additional Protocol was optional; and Egypt was not prepared to enter into additional commitments when a single State in the Middle East insisted on staying outside the NPT and continuously refused to place its nuclear programme under the IAEA safeguards.

The representative of Japan, with regard to draft resolution entitled towards a nuclear-free world:  Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments (A/C/.1/60/L.4), said Japan would support it.  But, before doing so, he must recall the regrettable outcome of 2005 World Summit and the NPT review, which had found no agreement on substantive issues.  The international community must try its best, so a lack of consensus would not erode existing regimes.  Member States must solidify their efforts.  Japan did not necessarily agree with all points in the resolution.  All countries should vote in favour of the nuclear disarmament resolution; that would help create a strong momentum.

The representative of Spain said his country had always considered that nuclear-weapon-free zones, created by arrangements freely arrived at by consensus among the States of the region concerned, were an important contribution to strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and achieving nuclear disarmament.  His country had always stated its unequivocal support to the goals set by the Treaty of Pelindaba, as a way to denuclearize a neighbouring continent.  As contemplated in the guidelines adopted by the United Nations Disarmament Commission in its 1999 substantive session, every zone was the outcome of specific circumstances, and it must reflect the diversity of situations existing within it.  Every nuclear-weapon-free zone must be a well-defined geographical entity.

He said, in that sense, after a very careful consideration of the invitation to join Protocol III to the Treaty of Pelindaba, the Spanish Government decided that it would not sign the said Protocol for two reasons.  First, the Treaty of Pelindaba did not contemplate any provisions, obligations, guarantees or safeguards in the field of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation that Spain had not already adopted within its whole national territory.  Second, the signature, and later ratification of Protocol III would therefore create a redundant nuclear control regime over those parts of Spanish territory that, according to the Treaty, fell within the geographical area to which the Treaty applied.  But, Spain was already subject to the comprehensive nuclear monitoring carried out by the IAEA, European Atomic Energy Community (EU/EURATOM), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for the entire Spanish territory.

Spain, he said, abided by a wide range of commitments in the field of the control of nuclear armaments and non-proliferation.  All Spanish nuclear facilities were exclusively devoted to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and were subject to a double monitoring by the IAEA and the EU/EURATOM, in the framework of the Generalized Safeguards Agreement between the non-nuclear-weapon European Union Member States.  Together with such Union Member States, Spain had ratified the Additional Protocol to the Generalized Safeguards, which foresaw verification mechanisms that went well beyond those contained in the Treaty of Pelindaba.  Those parts of the Spanish territory included in the geographical area to which the Treaty applied were, in their entirety, an integral part of the European Union and, therefore, of the process of political and economic integration that the Union incarnated.

All in all, he said, Spain had renounced production of nuclear weapons, was militarily denuclearized in its whole national territory, was committed to an exclusively peaceful use of nuclear energy and had contracted and abided by obligations that went well beyond those contained in the Treaty of Pelindaba.  On the other hand, the application of the Treaty to those parts of the Spanish territory that fell within the geographical area to which the Treaty applied would lead to the creation of a redundant and unnecessary nuclear control regime.  Spain had always joined consensus on the First Committee’s resolution on the Treaty of Pelindaba since first tabled in 1997.  Nevertheless, Spain did not consider itself bound by the said consensus as far as operative paragraph 3 was concerned, on which it upheld serious reservations, due to the fact that his Government had finally and irreversibly concluded that Spain could not sign and ratify Protocol III of the Treaty of Pelindaba.

Spain did not intend to modify the Treaty of Pelindaba, but only operative paragraph 3 of the biannual General Assembly resolution, he said.  In order not to add disturbing elements to the rather strained situation of disarmament and non-proliferation multilateral forum, Spain had decided not to question consensus on that resolution, being confident that it could reach satisfactory wording of operative paragraph 3 within the next two years.  In that regard, the Spanish delegation intended to initiate consultations to that end with interested delegations.

Iran’s representative said he would vote in favour of Japan’s text, in a departure from his abstention last year.  That change was mainly due to the positive changes made in the text, although it could be strengthened in aspects relevant to nuclear disarmament measures and obligations.  The draft should also have been stronger in reaffirming the importance of the practical steps agreed at the NPT review in 2000.  While the draft touched on some of the concepts, like universalizing the Additional Protocol –- which was still far from generally agreed among the NPT States parties –- the draft lacked sufficient emphasis on some other aspects of nuclear disarmament, which had received great international support.  Those mainly concerned the important role of nuclear-weapon-free zones.  He associated himself with the draft’s approach, however, and would support it.

Zimbabwe’s representative withdrew his co-sponsorship of the Coalition’s draft on a nuclear-weapon-free world (L.4).

When the Committee turned to that draft on a nuclear-weapon-free world (L. 4), it took a separate vote on operative paragraph 4, which called on the NPT States parties to spare no efforts to achieve the Treaty’s universality, and urged India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States, promptly and without conditions.

The Committee voted to retain that provision by 148 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Bhutan, Cameroon, Federated States of Micronesia, Indonesia, Jamaica, Mauritius, United Kingdom, United States).  (Please see Annex I.)

Next, it approved the draft resolution as a whole by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 5 against ( France, India, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 19 abstentions (Annex II).

Then, the draft resolution on a renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (A/C/.1/60/L.28) was approved by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 2 against (India, United States), with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan) (Annex III).

The representative of France said he had voted against resolution L.4, on towards a nuclear-free world.  That resolution had been tabled over a number of years.  However, when it was tabled last year, the text contained many elements not acceptable to the United States, the United Kingdom and France.  This year, the text took a more pragmatic approach.  The title did not reflect the progress in nuclear disarmament.  The United States, the United Kingdom and France remained fully committed to meeting their obligations.  They had taken significant measures themselves, and the resolution did not take into account the progress being made.  All three countries were committed to exploring ways to move forward.  The international community must take responsibility and address serious threats posed to peace and security.

The representative of Venezuela said his country supported eliminating nuclear weapons, and it had supported resolution L.28, on that issue.  However, he wanted to place on record that Venezuela had not been satisfied with the resolution as drafted.  The atomic bombing in Nagasaki inflicted heavy losses on the population.  The pain and devastation continued today to family members.  That resolution should highlight the problems endured by the victims of the nuclear bombing.  Proper treatment should be given to the victims and family members still suffering.

The representative of Colombia said he had voted in favour of both resolutions L.4 and L.28.  However, with regard to a complete nuclear test ban treaty, Colombia reiterated what it had said before on both items, and had communicated with the Secretariat of the CTBTO.  Colombia fully confirmed its commitment to the treaty and continued to seek ways to overcome constitutional impediments, so that the treaty would be properly ratified at the earliest possible date.  Colombia’s proposals for overcoming that obstacle continued to be discussed, with the advice of the provisional secretariat.  He hoped discussions would soon lead to a solution.

The representative of India said he fully supported the basic intent of resolution L.28.  The ultimate objective of States was general and complete disarmament.  India much appreciated Japan’s commitment.  However, India found that the resolution incorporated elements not acceptable, such as the call to join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon State.  India agreed with global elimination, but it must still vote against the resolution.

The representative of the Russian Federation said, with regard to resolution L.4, he took note of the efforts of the States of the New Agenda Coalition on the question of nuclear disarmament.  The text was reworked and shortened, and had a specifically positive dynamic.  The draft resolution contained an important provision, in particular, the importance of the NPT and the commitment to non-proliferation.  Nevertheless, he had abstained.  First, because of the title.  He believed the total elimination of nuclear weapons was possible only through a gradual, staged progress towards the ultimate goal, without artificially moving forward with the participation of all nuclear States.  Second, the preambular paragraph on implementation requiring compliance with commitments and agreements relating to nuclear disarmament.

Explaining his vote on the total elimination of nuclear weapons, L. 28, Syria’s representative said that, based on his support of international efforts to implement nuclear disarmament, he supported the draft resolution.  However, he had some reservations regarding the reference to the CTBT, in particular the tenth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 8.  Because of the position he had voiced on several occasions concerning the CTBT, he believed that those provisions, in fact, were keeping the resolution from reaching its ultimate nuclear disarmament goal.

Speaking first on a nuclear-weapon-free world, L. 4, Pakistan’s representative said that his delegation last year had appreciated the efforts of the sponsors in revising the text to bring into focus the importance of the objectives of nuclear disarmament.  The removal of the reference to which he had reservations last year had enabled him to support it, but the sponsors’ decision this year to name the countries outside the NPT and the call for their accession without conditions, including the references to the NPT Final Documents, had obliged his delegation to abstain on the draft as a whole, and to vote against operative paragraph 4.  His decision to vote against that provision was in line with his clear position on the universalization of the NPT.

Regarding the text on the total elimination of nuclear weapons, L. 28, he said he did not agree with several provisions, which placed an inordinate emphasis on non-proliferation, rather than on nuclear disarmament, which should be the draft’s central focus.  That inordinate emphasis was a reflection of the digression in that vital area.  He could not accept the call to accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State, nor did Pakistan consider itself bound by any provision emanating from NPT Review Conferences or other forums in which it was not represented.  While he supported the objectives of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, he could not agree with some of the proposals, which were both selective and unrealistic.  He, therefore, had decided to abstain in the vote on the draft, rather than oppose it.

Spain’s representative said his intervention about the draft resolution on the Pelindaba Treaty should be on the record when the Committee took action on the text.  He had thought that would be today.  On L. 4, he said Spain was firmly committed to peace and following through on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation commitments.  Both concepts and objectives were indivisibly intertwined, inasmuch as they mutually reinforced each other as the world sought to attain a single, broader goal -– international peace and security.

He said his country had always pursued a responsible and balanced policy, consistent with its international and regional security commitments.  One more demonstration of that commitment to peace and nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was its decision, once again, to co-sponsor L. 28.  Concerning L. 4, he paid tribute to the constructive efforts made by the New Agenda Coalition.  The text was a step in the right direction towards achieving a more balanced and feasible draft more likely to achieve global consensus.  There was still room for fine tuning in the context of its international regional security commitments, but it was not timely for him to reconsider his abstention for now.

The representative of France said he had supported the draft on the total elimination of nuclear weapons, L. 28.  Updating the structure and substance of the text from last year’s version had been a demanding task.  Certain problems had been raised, namely irreversibility and transparency.  The European Union, in its joint position on 25 April on the NPT Review Conference, had recognized the application of the principle of irreversibility to orient all nuclear disarmament and arms control measures.  The same common European Union position promoted transparency, which constituted voluntary confidence-building measures designed to achieve greater progress in the disarmament arena.  His positive vote today could not be construed as implying any renunciation of that position on France’s part.  He also recalled that nuclear deterrence remained an essential underpinning of his country’s security, and that nuclear disarmament fell in the context of general and complete disarmament.

The Committee then adopted resolution  measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction (document A/C.1/60/L.51) without a vote.

The representative of Pakistan, speaking in explanation of vote on L.51, said his delegation supported the objective of the resolution, although he continued to believe the language of the resolution could have been improved to convey a more objective reflection of reality.  Pakistan agreed with the widely held view that the best threat against weapons of mass destruction was their total elimination.  But, there were other relevant issues to the debate.  There were serious concerns over the alarmingly slow pace of progress involving the elimination of chemical weapons agents by States.  As long as those weapons remained a possibility, the possibility of them falling into terrorist hands remained, as well.  On the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), a compliance mechanism was still out of reach.  A compliance mechanism would have led to progress in promoting international peace and security, as expressed in the resolution.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union on the decision on an international instrument to trace small arms (L.55),said the Union welcomed the hard work done while supporting the decision to adopt the instrument.  But, no operational provisions on ammunition or peacekeeping instruments were provided.  Also, it was not legally binding.  If it was applied by States with the necessary political will, it would help reduce the trafficking of small arms and light weapons.  The Union hoped it could be strengthened at further meetings.  The Union was committed to the cause.  It appealed to all Member States to support it.

The representative of Jordan said he wanted to add his country’s name to the list of co-sponsors of decision L.55.  He did so, since he believed, though it was not a legally binding instrument, it was still a step in the right direction.

The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said he wanted to announce his deep disappointment at the outcome of the Open-Ended Working Group and the recommendation placed before the Committee.  The document was but a first step in the process.  The Plan of Action as a political document addressed only part of the problem.  The CARICOM States were strongly committed to the implementation of the Programme of Action, but it believed there was need for further action.  The failure of the Open-Ended Working Group to reach consensus was a cause for regret.  Such failure was caused by the obstructive tactics of a few delegations.  An effective legally-binding instrument on identifying and tracing small arms and light weapons would have been an important contribution to national, bilateral and regional efforts to control the proliferation of small arms, which so heavily taxed the human and financial resources of the region.

The representative of Norway said he wanted to align his country with the view expressed in the statement given by the United Kingdom, on the draft decision L.55.

The representative of Uruguay, on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), said the following countries also subscribed in full to his statement:  Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama.  On the occasion of the meetings held by the Open-Ended Working Group to negotiate an international instrument for the marking and tracing the subregion expressed its unequivocal preference for a legally-binding instrument.  The negotiation of such an instrument was a unique opportunity to provide a clear signal with regard to the determination of the United Nations to face the problem posed by the illicit small arms.  From the beginning, the MERCOSUR and associated States interpreted the Plan of Action as a road map that recommended certain measures and provisions to be adopted at domestic, regional and global levels.

He said the MERCOSUR would have preferred that Member States acknowledged the need of dealing with the problem by including an essential component to small arms, such as ammunition.  The fact that the recently negotiated instrument did not include a single reference to ammunition limited its potential as an efficient tool.  His countries wished to reiterate their commitment to continuing their effort towards achieving an international legally-binding instrument that would allow, in an efficient, timely and reliable manner, the marking and tracing of ammunition and small arms and light weapons, and prevent their illicit brokering.

Japan’s representative, making a general statement on the draft resolution on the illicit small arms trade (L. 57), said he had learned that a separate recorded vote would be requested on one part of the text.  On that assumption, he was deeply regretful for the international community that such a request had been made.  The draft had enjoyed consensus adoption in past years, and it should be adopted by consensus this year, in order to ensure the active and steady implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms.

On a point of order, Mexico’s representative said he was very pained at having to raise a point of order and interrupt the speaker.  This point of order was being raised because Japan, as a co-sponsor of that draft, could no longer offer an explanation of vote or address the contents of the resolution.  General statements had already passed.

The Committee Chairman agreed that Japan, as a co-sponsor, was not entitled to make an explanation of vote.  The point was well taken.  He would proceed to action.

Japan’s speaker said he thought the Committee was still at the ‘general statement’ stage.  He had asked for the Chairman’s indulgence a few minutes ago, and the Chairman had permitted him to do so.  Thus, he was making his general statement with guidance from the Chair.

Mexico’s representative said the Chairman had been clear -– there would be no further general comments, and he had invited delegations to move into explanations of vote.  Uruguay had offered an explanation of vote prior to voting.  Mexico had also asked for the floor to offer an explanation of vote.  There could be no doubt, whatsoever, that the general comments phase had been concluded.  He did not wish to keep any delegation from speaking, but he asked the Chairman to clarify that the time had expired on general comments.

The Chairman said that the procedure was rather complicated.  First, delegations made a general statement or introduced drafts.  Then, they could offer explanations of vote before the vote.  Then, there was a vote.  Then voting, following by explanations after the vote.  So, from now on, once a phase had passed, he could not go back and allow any delegation to speak in a prior phase.  Japan could finish his statement, as a last exception.

Japan’s speaker, returning to a separate vote on operative paragraph 2, reminded delegations that that paragraph called on all States to implement a global instrument on marking and tracing.  There would be some dissatisfaction from certain countries on the nature of that instrument, but the negotiation of the draft instrument had been concluded by consensus by the working group last June.  There had been no voting and no objection to the consensus adoption.  Implementation of the instrument’s content was “possible and necessary”.  He hoped that separate voting would not negatively impact the 2006 review of the Programme of Action, which would be a significant opportunity for the international community to tackle the problem.  He hoped that every effort would be made for its success, as mentioned in the draft before the Committee.

Mexico’s speaker said he wished to place on the record his Government’s high esteem for the Ambassador’s efforts to achieve the best possible outcome in the context of a highly complex negotiating process, often subjected to the imposition of the will of the minority.  He recognized the personal qualities and enormous efforts exerted by him, notwithstanding that the outcome was not satisfactory to his country.  Regarding operative paragraph 2 of the draft, he would abstain from the vote, given that the paragraph did not make any reference to existing regional and universal instruments, binding in nature, on marking and tracing of those weapons.  He was obliged to observe highest of standards on marking and tracing, so he must not agree to instruments that were not only not legally binding, but agreed to the “least common denominator standards”.

On L. 57, he said he had suggested the inclusion in paragraph 2 of an appeal to States to implement all relevant instruments, particularly those of a binding nature, above and beyond what had recently been agreed.  There were other regional and global instruments, binding in nature and relevant to the issue.  His amendments, however, had not been accepted by the co-sponsors.  Worse, the rationale put forward for rejecting Mexico’s amendments was the impossibility of incorporating them if Mexico itself could not guarantee that each would be accepted by each and every Member State.  That procedure was highly irregular, and he regretted that the co-sponsors had found themselves unable to agree to the amendments, particularly in light of the imminent preparatory work facing the disarmament community for the 2006 review.  He also regretted that the draft resolution did not substantively contribute to those preparations.

On a point of order, the representative of the United Kingdom said he hoped that in applying rules, there should be an understanding of the possibility of missing “titling”.  The process was not always terribly clear, so he hoped everybody could be humane towards each other when applying the rules.

The Chairman said, “so there would be exceptions from time to time?”

The Committee then approved the draft decision on an international instrument on marking and tracing (document A/C.1/60/L. 55) by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to none against, with 25 abstentions (Annex IV).

The Chairman then turned to action on operative paragraph 2 in resolution L.57, which concerned the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.  Operative paragraph 2 would call upon all States to implement the international instrument to enable States to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons.

Then, the representative of the United States, in a point of order, said he wanted to reiterate that delegations should have adequate notice of resolutions that generated oral statements on budget implications prior to their consideration on the floor.  His concern for transparent management and funding was paramount.  The United States requested that the oral statement be issued in writing and it requested a postponement of the vote in order to study technical aspects and financial implications.

The Chairman said he would suspend action on L.57.

The representative of Japan said he wanted to ask for clarification about the request to stop the procedure on taking a decision on that draft resolution.  As he understood, there were also cases in the past, including yesterday, when a decision was taken with an oral statement, that there were no budgetary implications.  In fact, concerning a certain resolution, the Committee got an oral statement from the Secretariat on the budgetary implications and action was not stopped.  Now the whole procedure was to be stopped.  He certainly stood to be corrected, but he didn’t see any difference and needed clarification.

The Chairman then said there was a distinction.  Yesterday, there was no request for suspension.  Today, there was a request for suspension.  Any request for suspension would have precedence over the voting action.  So, the difference was very clear.

The representative of Sierra Leone said the Committee should refer to rule 128.  After the Chairman had announced voting, no representative could interrupt, except for the actual conduct of the voting.

The representative of Mexico said the statement by Sierra Leone was striking and clear cut.  It was very clear that there was no ground for the United States’ statement.  He didn’t want to introduce a motion, but for the good of the Committee, it had to abide by procedure when voting began.  It could be interrupted only on an issue that affected the voting itself.

The representative of the United States said it was his understanding the General Assembly rules allowed for any delegation to request statements of programme budget implications.  The United States was not requesting such, since it wanted to move along.  A statement of programme budget implication required
48 hours.  He was asking for less than that, but it was very important.  On the question of oral statements, he didn’t think they were mentioned in the rules of procedure of the Assembly, so it was difficult to address how they should be handled.  Rather, the Committee should focus on how to do its business most efficiently and effectively.  It seemed, most logically, that the time to raise the flag was after the delivery of the oral statement, because that’s when delegations understood what others were asking for and why.  But, for the sake of clarity, it seemed the logical time was to talk about them immediately after the statement was delivered.

The representative of Cuba said his delegation had the same interpretation of how to conduct voting as explained by Mexico and Sierra Leone.  He believed in terms of procedure.  It was quite clear on that score.

The representative of Sierra Leone said he may be wrong, but the United States had to acquiesce to rule 128; when in the process of voting, the voting could not be interrupted.

Under-Secretary-General Nobuyasu Abe said the Committee needed to approach that question from a practical point of view.  When the provisional rules of procedure were adopted, there was no such practice as to the issue of budget implications or oral statements.  In fact, Member States had to bear the cost of any action by the General Assembly.  So, practically speaking, it was to the benefit of Member States to take discretion into consideration.  Either provide information in oral statements beforehand so Member States could make a decision before they vote, or they might ask for deferral of action when an oral statement was actually made.

A representative of the Legal Office then said the point of order raised by the United States regarding oral statements had its merits.  Such statements must, as a whole, be transparent and be made available to all States.  Regarding the point that the Committee postpone its action on voting, that did not seem to stand, if one considered the rule 128.  It was crystal clear, that once the voting procedure was started, the procedure could not be suspended.

The representative of the United States said he had come up to the podium earlier to try and gain a sense of what people thought would be appropriate for him to make an intervention, that so it would not be in contravention with the rules of procedure.  Perhaps legal expertise had not been consulted at that point, but, acting in good faith by advice given from the podium, he was disappointed to hear the ruling.  That said, he would not be able to participate in the vote.

The Chairman then said he made the decision because it was correct according to the rules of procedure.  The draft resolution did not have any budgetary implications.

The Committee then voted to retain operative paragraph 2 by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions ( Mexico, Jamaica) (Annex V).

The Committee then approved draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/60/L.57), without a vote.

Explaining his position, Venezuela’s representative said that the illicit small arms trafficking intensified violent deeds and, in many cases, squandered efforts to resolve conflicts.  It also exacerbated crime, drug trafficking and terrorism.  Hers was among those countries fully committed to multilateral efforts to overcome those problems, and supported several instruments, which complemented the United Nations Convention Against Organized Transnational Crime.  Moreover, she supported implementation of an international instrument to enable States to trace and mark illicit small arms and light weapons, but she would have preferred that it be legally binding.  For that reason, she had not opposed consensus on L. 57, but she had a reservation on preambular paragraph 6, which made a reference to the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit.  President Chavez had denounced that document, considering that it had been adopted in violation of United Nations standards and, thus, had no validity as far as Venezuela was concerned.

Jamaica’s representative said she abstained in the vote on L. 55 for reasons similar to those offered on behalf of the MERCOSUR.  During the general debate, her delegation had expressed its profound disappointment that the working group to elaborate a global marking and tracing instrument had not produced a more substantive and legally-binding instrument.  Jamaica was committed to the total elimination of the illicit small arms trafficking and had been pursuing that objective through relevant agreements.

She said that, while the terms of the text just adopted were in keeping with Jamaica’s obligations, her country was concerned that it was being asked to implement prescriptions that were weaker and less prescriptive.  By not imposing strong enough obligations on the producer countries, the instrument had not provided the reinforcement needed in the fight against the illicit small arms trade.  The non-binding nature of the instrument and its voluntary implementation would do little to stem the illicit arms traffic.  To do that required a collective responsibility on the part of all members of the international community.  The main burden should fall on those States that produced small arms.  While Jamaica would implement the provisions of the instrument, it would continue to pursue international legally-binding instruments to deal with the illicit brokering and manufacture of small arms and light weapons.

Speaking on L. 55, Guyana’s representative said that, although she supported the decision, a legally-binding instrument would have reflected a stronger global commitment, which was needed to curb the illicit traffic linked to such activities as drug trafficking and terrorism.  Guyana and other Caribbean countries were especially vulnerable to armed violence generated by drug trafficking.  She, therefore, hoped that an international instrument on marking and tracing would help reduce those vulnerabilities.  Her Government would continue working with the international community to eradicate the illicit small arms trade.  She hoped, however, that any future instrument would be ‘legal’ in nature.  She also hoped the conference in 2006 would enable the international community to move beyond the set prescriptions and expedite agreements relating to the issue.

France’s representative, referring to L. 57, said he supported the principle of consensus in the realm of small arms and light weapons.  He had heard some delegations express fears that adoption of a non-legally-binding instrument on marking and tracing might create a bad precedent.  But, those countries breaking with consensus in the realm of small arms and light weapons were creating a far more noxious precedent at the global level, to which he would not resign himself.  He hoped those countries would work towards regaining the path of consensus.

Slovakia’s speaker said he had been listed as a co-sponsor of L.57, but he had not co-sponsored the draft.

Turning to the draft on the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (document A.C.1/60/L.19), the Committee approved it by a vote of 121 in favour to 3 against ( France, United Kingdom, United States), with 44 abstentions (Annex VI).

When the Committee began its consideration of drafts clustered under “other disarmament measures and international security”, Cuba’s representative reaffirmed the need to preserve multilateralism in international relations, based on international law and the United Nations Charter.  In that context, he reaffirmed multilateralism as the basic principle, not just for disarmament and non-proliferation negotiations, but also to resolve any problem that might arise between or among States parties so far as application of agreements were concerned.  The processes of consultation and negotiation should use internationally appropriate procedures within the context of the United Nations, or treaty machineries themselves, in order to preserve the collective security system.  Hopes for peace, stability and cooperation, which the United Nations was created to attain, were far from being realized.

He said that disarmament agreements clearly reflected the crisis of multilateralism at the global level.  His country would continue to support and be directly involved in major multilateral instrument and international disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation bodies and instruments.  Those had verification machinery, which was non-discriminatory and designed to foster constant consultations and cooperation among the parties to resolve disputes, facilitate compliance, and provide disincentives for resorting to any unilateral measures.

The representative of Russia said he wanted to introduce the revised draft resolution, entitled measures to promote transparency and confidence building in outer space (document A/C.1/60/L.30/Rev.1).  The objective was to exclude any possible ambiguity that confidence-building measures in space would somehow affect legitimate interests of the users of spacecraft.  His country did not want to say that. In order to have additional clarity, it would agree with the amendment.  That was why he had revised the text.  Measures to promote transparency in outer space could play an important role.

The Committee then adopted a draft decision entitled review of the implementation of the Declaration on the strengthening of International Security (document A/C.1/60/L.13) without a vote.

The Committee then approved a draft resolution on multilateralism in the field of arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament (document A/C.1/60/L.14) by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 6 against (Albania, Israel, Latvia, Micronesia, United Kingdom, United States), with 48 abstentions (Annex VII).

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (document A/C.1/60/L.15) by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom) (Annex VIII).

The representative of Canada said he wanted to express his disappointment that the resolution did not take into account his country’s concerns.   Canada had longstanding support for multilateralism.  It was a core principle in non-proliferation.  It was useful to take the opportunity to reinforce the view that multilateralism was a core principle, but it was not the core principle.  The language placed other measures in a lower tier of importance.   Canada was also concerned for how the resolution was phrased.  States should be describing an inclusive vision, by finding a language that appealed to more parties.

The representative of the United States said he wanted to offer an explanation on draft resolution L.15, on observance of environmental norms.  The United States had previously made clear that it saw no direct connection between general environmental standards and multilateral arms control agreements.  He remained unconvinced that the resolution was relevant to the work of the First Committee.  States should take environmental concerns into account, but concern for the environment should not lead States to overburden the critical phase of crafting such an agreement.  Such agreements were difficult enough.  It should not be the United Nation’s role to set standards for arms control agreements.  The resolution had not changed in the last five General Assembly sessions.  That suggested that L.15 had not generated progress towards resolving issues its sponsors wished to address.  For that reason, the United States voted no.

Turning to texts on the disarmament machinery, the United States representative asked if it was the appropriate time to request that any oral statements regarding financial implications for any resolutions in that cluster might be submitted in advance.

The Chairman said that, since the voting process had not started, the United States delegation could proceed.

The United States representative said that, since two drafts in the cluster on the disarmament machinery, namely L. 18 and L. 41, might generate oral statements, he requested that adequate notice be given prior to the texts’ consideration on the floor.  His concern was for the transparent management and funding of First Committee initiatives, which were paramount.  Thus, oral statements on either draft should be issued in writing.  If not, there should be a postponement of the vote, in order for delegations to study the technical aspects of the statement to be read out and their possible financial implications.

The Chairman said he would defer action on L.18 and L.41, and proceed with action on L. 17, on convening a fourth special session devoted to disarmament.

Next, the text on the fourth Special Session on Disarmament (document A/C.1/60/C.17) was adopted without a vote.

On a point of order, the representative of the United Kingdom reminded delegations that, as a practical person from a practical country, delegations should anticipate the content of those oral statements.  Legal advisors should reflect on the sense of where that (request) would keep happening.

The representative of the Russian Federation, noting that his draft on information security (document A/C.1/60/L. 29) would be considered at the next meeting, asked if the Secretariat could take a decision and internally settle the issue of financial implication statements ahead of time, so there would not be a repeat of the situation today.

Egypt’s representative then read out rules of procedure 128 and 129.

It was then agreed that, since there were only six texts for consideration tomorrow, the Committee would meet on Friday afternoon to take action on all remaining draft texts.

ANNEX I

Vote on Operative Paragraph 4/Nuclear Disarmament Commitments

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments (document A/C.1/60/L.4) was approved by a recorded vote of 148 in favour to 3 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: India, Israel, Pakistan.

Abstain: Australia, Bhutan, Cameroon, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Jamaica, Mauritius, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Bahamas, Belarus, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament Commitments

The draft resolution on implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments (document A/C.1/60/L.4) was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 5 against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, India, Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Australia, Belarus, Bhutan, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Absent:  Bahamas, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/60/L.28) was approved by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 2 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  India, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan.

Absent:  Bahamas, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Trace Illicit Small Arms

The draft decision on an international instrument to enable States to identify and trace illicit small arms (document A/C.1/60/L.55) was approved by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to none against, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Absent:  Bahamas, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Namibia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Operative Paragraph 2/Illicit Small Arms Trade

Operative paragraph 2 of the illicit trade in small arms in all its aspects (document A/C.1/60/L.57*) was approved by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, 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, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Jamaica, Mexico.

Absent:  Bahamas, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United States, Uzbekistan.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Indian Ocean

The draft resolution on implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (document A/C.1/60/L.19) was approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 3 against, with 44 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

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

Absent:  Bahamas, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

ANNEX VII

Vote on Multilateralism

The draft resolution on the promotion of multilateralism in disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/60/L.14*) was approved by a recorded vote of
116 in favour to 6 against, with 48 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  Albania, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Latvia, United Kingdom, United States.

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

Absent:  Bahamas, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

(END of ANNEX VII)

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Environmental Norms

The draft resolution on the observance of environmental norms in agreements on disarmament and arms control (document A/C.1/60/L.15) was approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, 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, Comoros, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, 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, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, 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, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  France, Israel, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Bahamas, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Haiti, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record