Sixty-first General Assembly

First Committee

21^st Meeting (PM)

INTERNATIONAL ARMS TRADE TREATY AIM OF DRAFT RESOLUTION

 

APPROVED BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

 

Seven More Texts Recommended to General Assembly;

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Small Arms Among Issues Addressed

The General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on creating a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing international standards in the trade on conventional arms, under the terms of 1 of 7 draft texts approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) on nuclear and conventional weapons.

By the terms of the draft on an arms trade treaty, introduced this year for the first time, the Assembly would also request the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts, commencing in 2008, to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for such an instrument.

The draft was approved by a vote of 139 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 24 abstentions (see Annex X).

Prior to approving the draft, the Committee decided to retain operative paragraph 2, which would request the Secretary-General to establish the group of governmental experts, by a vote of 133 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 26 abstentions (see Annex VIII).

The Committee also voted to retain operative paragraph 3, which would request the Secretary-General to provide the group of experts with any assistance required, by a vote of 133 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 24 abstentions (see Annex IX).

Also in the conventional arms area, the Committee approved a draft on the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction  (Ottawa Convention) by a vote of 157 in favour to none against, with 15 abstentions (see Annex VII).  By the text, the Assembly would renew its call upon States to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims; mine-risk education programmes; and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines.

The Committee also approved a draft on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects by a vote of 172 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (see Annex VI).  Under its terms, the Assembly would call upon all States to implement the international tracing instrument and would decide that the next review meeting for the 2001 Programme of Action would be held in New York no later than 2008.

A text on the renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons was approved by a vote of 168 in favour to 4 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, India, United States), with 8 abstentions (Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan) (see Annex IV).

The Committee also adopted a draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty by a vote of 175 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, United States), with 4 abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria) (see Annex V).

A draft on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas was approved by a vote of 168 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain) (see Annex III).

Prior to voting on the draft as a whole, the Committee voted to retain the words “and South Asia” in operative paragraph 5 by a vote of 160 in favour to 2 against ( India, Pakistan), with 11 abstentions (see Annex I).

Operative paragraph 5 as a whole was retained by a vote of 161 in favour to 1 against (India), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Israel, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) (see Annex II).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft on Mongolia’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status.

Statements were made today by Finland (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Spain, Syria, France, United Kingdom, Colombia, Iran, Venezuela, India, United States, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria, Jamaica, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, China, Switzerland, Morocco, Singapore, Myanmar, Algeria, Libya, Russian Federation, Costa Rica and Republic of Korea.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Friday, 27 October, to continue action on all disarmament and security-related draft texts.

Background

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.

Expected to be acted on under cluster 1, which concerns nuclear weapons, are drafts on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and Mongolia’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status.

From cluster 4, which deals with conventional weapons, action is also expected on three drafts:  the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects; implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction; and towards an arms trade treaty:  establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.

From cluster 6, which concerns other disarmament measures and international security, action is expected on a draft on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures.

Expected to be acted on under cluster 7, which deals with disarmament machinery, are drafts on:  United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services, United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, and United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.

Draft Summaries

Cluster 1

A draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/61/L.20) stresses the importance of the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba establishing nuclear-weapon-free- zones, as well as the Antarctica Treaty, to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

It would have the Assembly call upon eligible States to adhere to the Treaty of Rarotonga and its protocols, as well as call upon States of the region that had not yet ratified the Treaty of Pelindaba to do so.  It would further call upon all concerned States to facilitate adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties by all relevant States that have not yet done so.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would welcome the signature of the Treaty on a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in Central Asia, in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan, on 8 September, 2006.  It would also welcome the progress made on increased collaboration within and between zones at the first Conference of States parties to such treaties.

By a draft on the renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/61/L.32), the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of the universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and call upon States not parties to it to accede as non-nuclear-weapons States without delay and without conditions.  The draft would also call for nuclear-weapon States to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems in ways that promoted international stability and security.  It would urge all States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, while stressing the importance of maintaining existing moratoriums on nuclear-weapon test explosions.

Further, the draft would call upon the Conference on Disarmament to immediately resume its substantive work to its fullest, considering the current year’s developments in the Conference, and call upon all States to redouble their efforts to prevent and curb the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and their means of delivery.

According to a draft on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/61/L.48/Rev.1), the Assembly would stress the vital importance and urgency of signature and ratification of the Treaty, without delay and without conditions, to achieve its earliest entry into force.  It would also underline the need to maintain momentum towards completion of the verification regime and urge all States to maintain their moratoriums on nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions and to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty, while stressing that those measures did not have the same permanent and legally binding effect as the entry into force of the Treaty.  Further, it would condemn the nuclear test proclaimed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s on 9 October 2006, and demand that it not conduct any further tests.

A draft resolution on Mongolia ’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status (document A/C.1/61/L.53) would have the Assembly endorse and support Mongolia’s good-neighbourly and balanced relationship with its neighbours as an important element of strengthening regional peace, security, and stability.  It would further have the Assembly appeal to member States of the Asia and Pacific region to support Mongolia’s efforts to join the relevant regional security and economic arrangements.

Cluster 4

A draft on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/61/L.15/Rev.1) would have the Assembly 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, among others, through the provision of information to the Secretary-General of the name and contact information for the national points of contact and on national marking practices used to indicate country of manufacture and/or country of import.

The Assembly would further decide that the meeting of States to consider the implementation of the Instrument shall be held within the framework of the biennial meeting of States to consider the implementation of the Programme of Action, which shall be held in New York no later than in 2008.  It would also encourage States to submit national reports on their implementation of the Programme of Action and request the Secretary-General to collate and circulate such data and information.  It would also encourage States to share information on national experiences relating to best practices in the implementation of the Programme of Action.

By a text on the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (document (A/C.1/61/L.47/Rev.1), the Assembly would urge all States that had signed, but not ratified, the Convention to ratify it without delay.  It would further have the Assembly renew its call upon all States and other relevant parties to promote, support, and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine risk education programmes and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed or stockpiled worldwide.

Acknowledging the right of all States to manufacture, import, export, transfer and retain conventional arms for self-defence and security needs, and in order to participate in peace support operations, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing international standards in that area, and submit a report on the subject to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session, according to a draft on toward an arms trade treaty:  establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms (document A/C.1/61/L.55).

Further, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts, on the basis of equitable geographic distribution, commencing in 2008, to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for such an instrument and to transmit the group of experts’ report to the General Assembly for consideration at its sixty-third session.

Cluster 6

A draft on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/61/L.37) would have the Assembly emphasize the importance of including, in United Nations-mandated peacekeeping missions, as appropriate and with the consent of the host States, practical disarmament measures aimed at addressing the problem of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in conjunction with disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes aimed at former combatants, in order to promote an integrated comprehensive and effective weapons management strategy.

Cluster 7

By a text on United Nations disarmament fellowship, training, and advisory services (document A/C.1/61/L.12) the Assembly, noting that the Programme contributed significantly to developing greater awareness of the importance of disarmament and security, would express its appreciation to all Member States and organizations that had consistently supported the programme throughout the years, in particular to the Governments of Germany and Japan for the continuation of extensive study visits for programme participants, and to the Government of China for organizing a study visit for the fellows in the area of disarmament.  Further to the draft, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to continue to implement annually the Geneva-based programme within existing resources.

According to a draft on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/61/L.24), the Assembly, deeply concerned that, as noted in the report of the Secretary-General, the future of the Regional Centre looked bleak, as there was no foreseeable reliable source of funding to ensure its operational sustainability, would request the Consultative Mechanism for the reorganization of the Regional Centre to continue its work, including reviewing its mandate and programs, with a view to identifying concrete revitalization measures.  The draft would also have the Assembly urge all States and international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations to make voluntary contributions to strengthen the Centres’ programmes and activities and facilitate their implementation. It would appeal in particular to the Regional Centre, with the cooperation of the African Union, regional and subregional organizations and the African States, to promote the consistent implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.

A draft on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/61/L.28) would have the Assembly underline the importance of the Kathmandu process as a powerful vehicle for the development of region-wide security and disarmament dialogue.  It would appeal to Member States, in particular those within the Asia-Pacific region, as well as international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to strengthen the Centre’s programme of activities.  The draft would further urge the Secretary-General to complete the internal procedure for finalizing the host country agreement and the related memorandum of understanding and to ensure the physical operation of the Centre from Kathmandu within six months of the signature of the host country agreement.

Action on Texts

KARI KAHILUOTO (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that his delegation attached the utmost importance to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty’s entry into force.  The Treaty was an essential part of the disarmament and non-proliferation regime.  The European Union continued to call on States, particularly Annex 2 States, to sign and ratify it, without delay and without conditions.  Pending the Treaty’s entry into force, he urged all States to abide by a moratorium and to refrain from any actions which were contrary to the obligations and provisions of the Treaty.

He said that the European Union strongly condemned the test of a nuclear explosive device by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  His delegation would fully implement the provisions of all relevant Security Council resolutions, and notably those of resolutions 1718 and 1695. He strongly urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to return immediately to the six-party talks; to work towards expeditiously implementing the Joint Statement of September 2005; to verifiably abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes; and to comply with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, including submitting its nuclear activities to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification.  Furthermore, he called upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, to refrain from conducting any further nuclear test or missile launch, and to re-establish its commitments to a moratorium on missile launching.

Speaking before the vote, KIM KWANG IL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that he opposed the drafts on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (L.32) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (L.48/Rev.1), since both dealt with his country’s nuclear test in a one-sided manner.  That test was an exercise of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s legitimate right as a sovereign State, since the test was a self-defence counter-measure to protect its sovereignty, as well as the life and security of its people from the intense nuclear threat and sanctions by the United States.

He said it was the climax of partiality and immorality to take up the issue of his country’s right to defend its sovereignty, while neglecting hostile United States policies to it, which were the root cause of problems on the Korean Peninsula.  The drafts would only intensify, not solve the problems; therefore, he would vote against draft resolutions that did not help at all to solve nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula.

He said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remained unchanged in its view to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula through dialogue and negotiations.  His country would make every possible effort to realize the denuclearization of the Peninsula, promote global nuclear disarmament and eliminate nuclear weapons.

On a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/61/L.20), the Committee voted to retain the last three words of operative paragraph 5 (“and South Asia”) by a vote of 160 in favour to 2 against ( India and Pakistan), with 11 abstentions (See Annex I).

The Committee then voted to retain operative paragraph 5 as a whole by a vote of 161 in favour to 1 against (India), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Israel, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States) (See Annex II).

The Committee then adopted the draft as a whole by a vote of 168 in favour to 3 opposed (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain) (See Annex III).

The Committee adopted a draft resolution on the renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/61/L.32) by a vote of 168 in favour to 4 opposed (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, India, and United States), with 8 abstentions (Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan) (See Annex IV).

The Committee then adopted a draft resolution on the “Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty” (document A/C.1/61/L.48/Rev.1) by a vote of 175 in favour to 2 opposed (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and United States), with 4 abstentions ( Colombia, India, Mauritius, and Syria) (See Annex V).

The Committee adopted a draft resolution on Mongolia ’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status (document A/C.1/61/L.53) without a vote.

GERALDO BUGALLO (Spain) explaining his vote on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, L.20, said that while his Government fully supported nuclear-weapon-free zones when based on the consensual agreement among States in the region, it was, nonetheless, abstaining.  He noted that his delegation had supported the resolution’s precedents in the fifty-third and fifty-fourth sessions.

The text submitted contained a new concept on an international conference that was qualitatively different.  He said that the concept was not mentioned in any part of the Report of the Conference on Disarmament, nor did it appear in a document of the Review Conference.  Spain could not justify that type of international conference.

BASSSAM DARWISH (Syria) said that he had abstained on the resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (L.48/Rev.1), because a treaty of such importance must not in any way ignore the legitimate concern of non-nuclear weapon States, which made up a large majority of the world, and which had not been given assurances against the use of nuclear weapons, or the threat of their use.  Neither did the Treaty allow countries to acquire advanced peaceful technology, which was indispensable to speeding up the pace of development.

He said that the Treaty did not contain obligations for nuclear-weapon States to eliminate their arsenals in a reasonable time frame.  Neither did it refer to the illegality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.  It did not reaffirm the need to achieve the universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in order to end proliferation in all aspects.  Those who commented on the Test Ban Treaty agreed that the text confined itself to the prohibition of nuclear test explosions without dealing with laboratory tests or the development of new types of weapons.

He said that the Treaty allowed signatories to take measures against non-signatories, including via the Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, violating the sovereign rights of States to adhere, or not adhere, to the Treaty.  He also objected to the lack of inclusion of Israel in the Middle East list, since it was the only country to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and continued to develop them, while refusing to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or place its nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision.  That impeded efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and subjected the region, and the world, to the threat of Israel’s nuclear weapons.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France), explaining his vote on L.32, renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, said that his delegation wanted to lend its support to States that were looking at nuclear disarmament both seriously, and in good faith.  The draft had been renewed compared to two years ago, and indeed, brought up questions of substance -– notably on the principles of transparency and irreversibility.  Both of those were important for confidence-building.

Explaining his vote on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, L.20, and speaking on behalf of France, as well as the United States, JOHN DUNCAN ( United Kingdom) said that, as in past years, his delegations had voted against the resolution.  Its preamble referred to the freedom of the high seas, while including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the high seas.  He believed that was contradictory, as the area would not apply to the high seas.  Though that ambiguity had not been sufficiently clarified, he did want to emphasize that nuclear-weapon-free zones made an important contribution to international peace and security.

PEDRO A. ROA ARBOLEDA ( Colombia) said that he had abstained on the draft on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, L.48/Rev.1, despite his country’s traditional commitment to banning nuclear weapons.  Issues with the treaty’s secretariat and its preparatory commission had prevented his country from becoming a party to the treaty.  He joined other States in hoping those issues could be resolved as soon as possible.  He had specifically supported the draft’s operative paragraph 5.

REZA NAJAFI ( Iran), speaking in renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, L.32, said his country shared the main objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.  The only absolute guarantee against their use was their total elimination.  Last year, despite reservations, his country had changed its vote in favour of the resolution, in hope that the text would be improved this year.  The text of the current draft, however, was not appropriately balanced.  It referred to the Conference on Disarmament, but only focused on the fissile material cut-off treaty.  Even that reference was not consistent with the previous agreement of Member States at the Conference on Disarmament in 1995.  For that reason, he had abstained.

On the draft on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, L.48/Rev.1, he said that since Iran supported a total ban on weapons of mass destruction and development, he had favoured the resolution.  The prospect for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to enter into force faced a serious setback, due to the United States’ rejection of the ratification process.  The United States only partly supported the Preparatory Commission.  Although a moratorium on testing had been declared, some things in the United States had put that commitment into question.  Millions had been spent to reduce the time for a nuclear test to 18 months.  Test explosions were a key step in nuclear development and could be carried out by simulated tests by supercomputers.  The United States should reconsider its position and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.  Only that offered the prospect of a permanent, legally binding commitment to end nuclear testing.

PUI LEONG (Venezuela), explaining her vote on L.32 and L.48/Rev.1, said that Venezuela was State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and was in favour of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty because of its commitment to non-proliferation.  Her Government rejected nuclear testing, viewed nuclear weapons as a threat to mankind and believed complete elimination of nuclear weapons was the only way to fully address that threat.  She called for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty’s prompt entry into force.

JAYANT PRASAD ( India), explaining his vote on the southern hemisphere text, L.20, referred to operative paragraph 5 on the well-established principle that “arrangements on a nuclear-weapon-free zone were freely arrived at”.  He said that principle was not called upon when calling for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia.  He had, thus, abstained, and voted against the usage of the last three words “and South Asia”.

On the total elimination of nuclear weapons, L.32, India fully shared the objectives on the elimination of nuclear weapons and appreciated Japan’s commitment.  However, he believed that the draft incorporated certain elements which were unacceptable.

Referring to L.53, he said that as a country with friendly ties to Mongolia, India had noted the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone status there.  His delegation fully respected that and would respond with every possible support and commitment to Mongolia’s nuclear-weapon-free zone status.

CHRISTINA ROCCA ( United States) said that, of all the resolutions on nuclear disarmament, the one on renewed determination toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons (L.32) was the most balanced and realistic.  It recognized strategic reductions with her country and the Russian Federation, the start of efforts on a fissile material cut-off treaty, and made positive mention of IAEA safeguards.  It also deplored the nuclear test of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

She said that she had voted against the draft, however, because of its support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which the United States opposed.  The same considerations applied to the draft on the treaty itself (L.48).  She did support that draft’s operative paragraph 5, which condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear test and asked it not to conduct further ones.

KHALILULLAH QAZI ( Pakistan), speaking on the draft on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, L.20, said that Pakistan always supported nuclear-weapon-free zones in accordance with freely arrived at arrangements.  The call in operative paragraph 5 for the creation of such a zone in South Asia failed to acknowledge the situation on the ground.  Pakistan had sought that objective unsuccessfully for 24 years.  Nuclear explosions on 11 and 13 May 1998 disrupted the strategic balance in South Asia, obliging Pakistan to conduct tests to restore strategic stability.  With those explosions, the objective of a nuclear-weapon-free zone was defeated.  The insertion of “and South Asia” into the draft ran counter to ground realities.  For that reason, he had abstained on operative paragraph 5 and on the resolution as a whole, and had voted against the last three words of operative paragraph 5.

On the draft on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, L.32, he said that the draft placed a lopsided emphasis on non-proliferation, rather than on disarmament, which reflected regression in a vital area.  Pakistan could not accept the call to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear State, nor did it consider itself bound by any provisions of that treaty’s review conference, or other fora, in which Pakistan was not represented.  While Pakistan supported the objective of total elimination of nuclear weapons, it could not agree to some of the proposals that were selective and unrealistic.  For that reason, he had abstained.

On the draft on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, L.48, he said that Pakistan had consistently supported the objectives of the Treaty and had voted for the resolution in past years and in the present year.  In keeping with its policy of restraint, Pakistan had observed a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, in line with the treaty’s purpose.  He would have wished that the draft had reflected that element.  The objective of resolutions calling for signatures leading to the treaty’s entry into force would be facilitated when erstwhile opponents of the treaty restored their support.

KHALED ABDEL RAHMAN SHAMAA (Egypt), explaining his vote on the elimination of nuclear weapons, L.32, said that while his delegation supported a number of points within the draft, he believed that it still needed to stipulate all of the factors governing the non-proliferation regime.  The resolution also needed to reflect the commitment of the nuclear-weapon States to the 13 principles adopted by consensus in 2000.  Further, paragraph 11 of the text ran counter to the consensus which emerged in the Conference on Disarmament.  On the fissile material cut-off treaty, his delegation wished to cooperate with Japan.

ALON BAR (Israel), explaining his abstention on L.32, said that, while his delegation could not support all paragraphs therein, it did support those related to non-proliferation, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the condemnation of the nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

On the text of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, L.48/Rev.l, Israel had voted in favour, believing that the recent nuclear explosion by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea added to the instability in Northeast Asia.  His Government had played a large role in the verification of the regime of the Treaty, which it viewed as an important contribution to international peace and security.  He added that the treaty verification regime needed to be both robust and immune to abuse, while allowing for each State to protect its national security interests.

Speaking before action on the texts on conventional weapons, SOLA OGUNBANWO ( Nigeria) said that he was satisfied that there was so much support for the draft on an arms trade treaty, L.55.  He urged all Member States to be guided by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which had adopted a convention on small arms and light weapons earlier in the year.  That convention contained far-reaching provisions on international arms transfers, which were not in existing norms.  It banned arms transfers to, from, and through West Africa, and banned their transfer to non-State actors.  Exemptions were allowed only for the purposes of legitimate national defence and security needs, and for participation in peacekeeping efforts.  He said he looked forward to working with other delegations for the success of the draft.  He added that he wished to acknowledge the prominent role of civil society in the campaign for an arms trade treaty and reducing armed violence.

Mr. DUNCAN (United Kingdom) said that he wished to make a technical amendment of the translation of the draft into French.  The seventh preambulatory paragraph contained implicitly prejudicial language, which was not the intention of the co-authors.  He would recommend in writing that the Secretariat correct the French translation.

PEDRO A. ROA ARBOLEDA ( Colombia) said that he wanted to make a technical comment.  On the draft on the southern hemisphere, L.20, he believed that his delegation’s vote was not recorded.  He had intended to vote in favour.

RAYMOND WOLFE ( Jamaica), explaining his vote on an arms trade treaty, L.55, said he fully supported the objectives.  He said that many regions grappled with the effects brought on by the illicit trade of small arms.  Jamaica did not manufacture small arms, but did have access to them.  Levels of gun violence had indeed, burdened his country’s social and economic structure.  Though the Treaty was not a panacea, it would mean a move towards a comprehensive regime in controlling those arms.

KARI KAHILUOTO (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, and explaining his vote on L.15 on the issue of the illicit trade in small arms, said that his delegation attached great importance to the United Nations Programme of Action and supported all efforts aimed at its full implementation.  As the largest donor of international assistance aimed at achieving the objectives of the Programme of Action, the European Union was disappointed that its proposal to include two key amendments had not been included.  Those amendments covered the following two issues: to note the continued exchange of views on national and regional practices and lessons learned relating to national control on transfers of small arms; and to encourage the continued integration of efforts aimed at preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms.

Therefore, though the Union would vote in favour of the draft resolution, it was unable to co-sponsor such a text.  He also noted that meetings needed to take place on a regular basis.  The draft’s operative paragraph 4 did, indeed, provide a mechanism for setting a meeting date.

RODOLFO BENITEZ VERSON (Cuba), speaking on the draft on an arms trade treaty, L.55, said that it was one of the most novel, ambitious initiatives in the First Committee in recent years.  Despite the end of the cold war, trade in arms had not decreased.  More than $100 billion was spent on arms.  The United States alone spent the equivalent of the rest of the world and produced 60 per cent of the weapons sold on the planet.  Only a desire for profit could explain its refusal to accept such things as a prohibition on providing weapons to non-State actors.

He said that the idea of adopting a treaty on the conventional weapons trade was necessarily complex because of its consequences in terms of security and other issues for States.  Such a treaty could not fail to acknowledge the right of States to self-defence and the right to manufacture, import and export weapons to ensure that defence needs were met.  The importance of that right was not just a formality for Cuba, but an issue of national security.  For more than 40 years, it had been subject to the hostile policy of the most powerful nation, which possessed nuclear weapons.  Cuba did not have and never would have such weapons, so it needed conventional weapons to maintain its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  He regretted that the draft’s sponsors had not made an attempt to take into account Cuba’s constructive proposals, and those of others.

He said that he supported the idea in operative paragraph 1, which would allow states to express their view on the matter.  In practice, however, operative paragraph 2 would turn operative paragraph 1 into just a formality without any real usefulness and prematurely prejudged the course to be followed, even when States had not had the minimum time to express their views and proposals.  Cuba could not support that kind of approach on a legal instrument of such importance. Everyone knew the limits of expert groups, whose equitable geographical distribution of membership was often nearly cosmetic.  Operative paragraph 2 was in clear contradiction with the last perambulatory paragraph, which indicated an intention to negotiate on a non-discriminatory, transparent and multilateral basis.  Such a draft could be universally acceptable and effective only if it guaranteed open and real participation of all States throughout the process.  He hoped that next year, the co-sponsors would take such considerations into account.  For that reason, he would not vote in favour of the draft, nor in favour of the paragraphs which would be subject to separate votes.

TORIBIO OBIANG MBA MEYE ( Equatorial Guinea), explaining his vote on L.32, said that he had voted for -- not against it.  He hoped the record would reflect that.

PUI LEONG (Venezuela), explaining her vote on towards an arms trade treaty, L.55, said that Venezuela was committed to complete disarmament, but had abstained, as it believed that the initiative did not sufficiently address certain topics, including the economic and social implications.  Issues needed to be taken up one at a time.  Likewise, further dialogue and more consensus was required.

The Committee then adopted the draft on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (A/C.1/61/L.15/Rev.1) by a vote of 172 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (See Annex VI).

The Committee then adopted the draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (document (A/C.1/61/L.47/Rev.1) by a vote of 157 in favour to none against, with 15 abstentions (See Annex VII).

The Committee turned to the draft resolution on towards an arms trade treaty:  establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms (document A/C.1/61/L.55).

The Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 2 by a vote of 133 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 26 abstentions (Annex VIII).

The Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 3 by a vote of 133 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 24 abstentions (See Annex IX).

The Committee then adopted the draft as a whole by a vote of 139 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 24 abstentions (See Annex X).

CHENG JINGYE ( China), referring to L.55, on the arms trade treaty, said that his delegation was not in support of an arms trade treaty.  China was in favour of measures by the international community to address the illicit trade of small arms and believed that the implementation of the 2001 Programme of Action was of great importance.  However, the legal trade in arms had the economic interests of all countries at its core and a common standard for international legal instruments was both a complex, and sensitive issue.  In-depth discussions were needed; haste and hurried approaches were to be avoided, he added.

B. LUIS RODRIGUEZ ( Cuba), explaining his vote on anti-personnel mines, L.47/Rev.1, said his delegation had abstained, as it had in previous sessions.  Cuba shared the humanitarian concerns associated with anti-personnel mines, but it was well known that his country was subjected to the hostile policy of the military superpower.  Thus, it could not give up the use of those weapons -- it had the legitimate right to self-defence.

SACHA FULS (Switzerland), explaining his vote on L.15, on the issue of illicit trade in small arms, said that his delegation was once again in favour of that resolution.  He believed that the implementation of the Programme of Action was very important, as was an international tracing instrument.  Moreover, his delegation saw that there were links among security, peace, human rights and development.  That needed to be reflected in the international community’s efforts and his Government had, thus, proposed a preambular paragraph on armed violence and development.  Regrettably, that proposal was not taken into consideration.

LOTFI BOUCHAARA ( Morocco ), explaining his vote for L.47/Rev.1, said that Morocco was not a signatory to the Ottawa Convention because of its legitimate security interests. However, his delegation was in favour of the draft, because it reiterated his country’s support and devotion to the humanitarian principles of the Convention.

JAYANT PRASAD ( India), speaking on L.55, said that the United Nations Charter recognized the right of all States to self-defence.  Preambular paragraph 5 recognized the right of States to manufacture, import, export, transfer and retain conventional arms for self-defence and security needs and recalled the obligations of all States to fully comply with arms embargoes decided by the Security Council in accordance with the Charter.  In regulating the export of conventional arms, obligations under international law must be taken into account. 

He said he was not convinced that the absence of standards on the conventional arms trade was responsible for the illicit trade in them.  It was the sole responsibility of States to establish firm control over the conventional arms trade, taking into account their obligations.  He supported the proposal to have the Secretary-General seek the views of Member States.  The resolution prejudged the outcome of consultations by suggesting that he establish a group of governmental experts.  It would be appropriate to establish such a group through a resolution at the sixty-second session of the General Assembly, after taking into account the responses received.  For that reason, India had abstained on operative paragraphs 2 and 3, and on the resolution as a whole.

On L.47/Rev.1, he said that India supported a world free of landmines.  It had ratified Amended Protocol 2, discontinued production on non-detectable mines, and remained committed to increasing international cooperation assistance and to helping mine victims.  The goal of the complete elimination of anti-personnel landmines would be achieved through the availability of non-lethal alternative technology that could fulfil the same role.  For that reason, India was not a party to the landmine convention and had abstained on the current resolution.

Also speaking on L.47/Rev.1, GERALDINE LOW ( Singapore) said that her country supported all initiatives on anti-personnel landmines.  Legitimate security concerns and the right to self-defence could not be disregarded.  A blanket mine ban would be counterproductive.

Speaking on the same draft, AYE AYE MU ( Myanmar) said that her country opposed in principle the export, transfer, and indiscriminate use of such mines.  Though not part of the Ottawa Convention, Myanmar respected States parties of the Convention.  All states had the right to self-defence, and no State would compromise national security and sovereign interest under any circumstance.  For that reason, she had abstained.

REZA NAJAFI ( Iran), speaking on the text on the arms trade treaty, L.55, he said that his country was affected by the illicit arms trade, which was related to drug trafficking and terrorist groups.  Iran had always wanted to eradicate such illicit trade.  During informal negotiations, it had expressed readiness for constructive cooperation, but its views were not reflected in the text, which had repetitions, contradictions, and lacked a basis for consensus.  In the operative paragraphs, views were sought from Member States, but before receiving them, they would request the establishment of a government group of experts.  That was contradictory and prejudged the views of Member States.  The support of all major arms producing countries was necessary for the success of such an instrument.  Without the participation of arms producing states, it would turn into another unproductive instrument.  For that reason, he had abstained on the resolution.

LARBI EL HADJ ALI ( Algeria) said that he had voted in favour of L.55, and supported any steps to establish an international instrument to define objective norms to regulate the transfer of conventional weapons.  The end of a process of multilateral cooperation should be as broad as possible.  In future, engagement must be non-selective, and under the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter.

ALI BERBASH (Libya), explaining his vote on L.55, on the issue of an arms trade treaty, and speaking on behalf of the fraternal Arab countries, said that those discussions revealed many divergent views and lingering reservations among States.  Though his delegation understood the humanitarian objectives behind the initiative, the text overlooked a number of considerations.  He stressed that arms control measures needed to take into account the security concerns of all States, without selectivity.

He emphasized that any control on arms would not guarantee a balanced viewpoint.  Israel continued to occupy Arab territories and possessed sophisticated weapons of mass destruction.  It was the only State in the region not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.  He reiterated that any agreement needed to be reached both through open-ended negotiations, and be open to all.

Explaining his vote on L.47/Rev.1, he said his delegation had abstained because of its position on the Ottawa Convention.  Libya was not party to it, because it did not address the concerns of States suffering from the effects of mines.

Mr. VASILIEV ( Russian Federation), explaining his delegation’s abstention on L.55, on the issue of an arms trade treaty, said that he understood the humanitarian aspects regarding the uncontrolled spread of those weapons.  However, the problem lay in the illegal arms trade, by which terrorists and criminal gangs could gain access.  He questioned how to establish criteria for responsible trade and how that could be distinguished from irresponsible trade.  Those issues were difficult to reconcile and, thus, reaching agreement on universal regulations on the legal arms trade would be difficult as well.

ARON BAR ( Israel), also referring to L.55, said that his delegation had been forced to listen to a list of baseless allegations.  Those accusations had nothing to do with the arms trade treaty draft.  Those countries criticizing Israel were the ones encouraging the illicit trafficking of arms to terrorist organizations.  Furthermore, Israel’s defence policy was not a concern to global peace.

On arms control, he said that robust standards were vital in the struggle against terrorism.  However, he was not yet convinced that such a treaty would facilitate reaching the goal of controlling the arms trade.  On the other hand, it could hinder a State’s right to self-defence and the legitimate arms trade.

SAUL WEISLEDER ( Costa Rica) said that his delegation had co-sponsored and voted for L.55 on an arms trade treaty.  As a peaceful country with no army, Costa Rica continued to commit itself to reaching a comprehensive treaty on that matter.

CHOI HONG-GHI ( Republic of Korea) speaking on L.47/Rev.1, said his country fully sympathized with the objectives of the Ottawa Convention, which played a central role in alleviating human suffering.  Given the situation on the Korean peninsula, his country must give priority to security concerns and could not accept the Convention at present.  It had joined the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, as well as Protocol 2, and was working for the responsible use of landmines, while balancing humanitarian concerns and military necessities.  It would continue to help those affected through contributions to relevant United Nations programmes.

QAZI KHALILULLAH ( Pakistan), speaking on L.47/Rev.1, said that anti-personnel landmines were an important part of the national defence strategy for countries with long borders that were unprotected by natural obstacles.  Pakistan could not agree to demands for a complete prohibition of such mines until viable alternatives were available, so he had abstained on the draft.  Pakistan opposed the irresponsible use of landmines and was committed to the highest standards of responsibility in the use of defensive weapons.  It was part of Protocol 2 to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which his country continued to implement with the greatest earnestness.  It participated in international demining operations and had an excellent record in mine clearance after conflict situations were over.  It complied with international norms and marked minefields to keep civilians out.

Speaking on L.55, on an arms trade treaty, he said that Pakistan had long been in the forefront of arms control efforts, particularly at regional and subregional levels, and shared the long-term objectives of the draft.  A comprehensive approach was required to address such a complex issue.  Emphasis on supply-side prescriptions and disregard of regional participants did not advance the shared goals of controlling arms transfers and did not address existing imbalances that had negative effects on regional security.

He said that equal attention should be paid to reducing armed forces and armaments, especially in regions of tension.  The overarching aim of any arms trade framework must be geared to reducing regional and international tensions, building confidence, and promoting disarmament and social and economic development.  A step-by-step approach was needed, one which promoted the United Nations Arms Register, addressed supply and demand, and strengthened national controls on transfers.  Regional and subregional mechanisms were also needed.  The Secretary-General should seek views of Member States, establish a group of governmental experts, and then formulate instruments.  Unfortunately, those inputs had been omitted from the draft, so had he abstained.

KHALED ABDEL RAHMAN SHAMAA ( Egypt), explaining his vote on anti-personnel mines, L.47, said that his delegation’s abstention came from the view that the Treaty had many gaps.  The Convention did not make mention of the responsibilities of States that had used anti-personnel mines, and then failed in their responsibility to eliminate them.  It also did not contain anything on assistance to the countries affected.  Egypt, for one, had been affected.  There were still 22 million mines in his country.

ANNEX I

Vote on ‘and South Asia’

The words “and South Asia” in operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/61/L.20) were retained by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 2 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, 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, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, 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, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Pakistan.

Abstain:  Bhutan, Burkina Faso, France, Israel, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Kiribati, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Operative Paragraph 5/Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

Operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/61/L.20) was retained by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 1 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, 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, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, 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, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India.

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

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/61/L.20) was approved by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 3 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, 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, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, 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, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

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

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Monaco, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sudan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/61/L.32) was approved by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 4 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, 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, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, India, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Syria, Tuvalu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

The draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/61/L.48/REV.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 175 in favour to 2 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, 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, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, United States.

Abstain:  Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Kiribati, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Illicit Small Arms Trade

The draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/61/L.15/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Anti-Personnel Mine Treaty

The draft resolution on implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (document A/C.1/61/L.47/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to none against, with 15 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

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

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Nepal, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 2/Arms Trade Treaty

Operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution on an arms trade treaty (document A/C.1/61/L.55) was retained by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 1 against, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Armenia, Bahrain, Belarus, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Kuwait, Libya, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Bahamas, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3/Arms Trade Treaty

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on an arms trade treaty (document A/C.1/61/L.55) was retained by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 1 against, with 24 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Belarus, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kuwait, Libya, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Armenia, Bahamas, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX X

Vote on Arms Trade Treaty

The draft resolution entitled “Towards an arms trade treaty:  establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms (document A/C.1/61/L.55) was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 1 against, with 24 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Belarus, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Libya, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Armenia, Bahamas, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Myanmar, Namibia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record