Sixty-second General Assembly

First Committee

21^st & 22^nd Meetings (AM & PM)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD CALL FOR IMMEDIATE, URGENT STEPS TO REDUCE UNINTENTIONAL

NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE, ACCORDING TO ONE OF 21 TEXTS APPROVED IN FIRST COMMITTEE

In 14 Recorded Votes, Members Approve Drafts on, among Others, Missiles,

Outer Space Arms Race, Renewed Determination to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons

Considering that the hair-trigger alert of nuclear weapons carried unacceptable risks, the General Assembly would call for immediate and urgent steps to reduce the dangers of those weapons’ unintentional and accidental use, according to one of 19 draft resolutions and two draft decisions approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

That draft resolution, entitled “Reducing nuclear danger”, would have the Assembly call for the five nuclear-weapon States to take steps towards de-alerting and de-targeting their nuclear weapons.  The Assembly would call on Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.  The Committee approved that draft resolution by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 50 against, with 13 abstentions.  (For details of the vote, see Annex VII.)

Taking note of the unilateral declarations made by all the nuclear-weapon States on their policies of non-use or non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear-weapon States, the General Assembly would reaffirm by that text the urgent need for an effective international arrangement to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, according to a draft resolution approved by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 54 abstentions.  (See Annex XII.)

The Assembly, determined to pursue practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons would call for, among other things, nuclear-weapon States to make further efforts to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally, increase transparency with regard to nuclear weapons capabilities, as a voluntary confidence-building measure, and support further progress in nuclear disarmament.  The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 103 in favour to 53 against, with 15 abstentions (See Annex V.)

Turning to the prevention of an arms race in outer space, the Committee approved a draft resolution that would have the Assembly call upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and of the prevention of an arms race in outer space and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to the relevant existing treaties in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation.  It was approved by a recorded vote of 170 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel) (See Annex XIII.)

The Committee, approving a draft on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against (India), with 1 abstention (Bhutan), would have the Assembly decide to give urgent consideration to those issues, and further request the Conference on Disarmament to consider creating a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control (See Annex XIV.)

Also by recorded votes, the Committee approved draft texts on missiles (see Annex VI); a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons (see Annex VIII); the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (see Annex X); nuclear disarmament (see Annex XI); risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (see Annex II); United Nations conference to eliminate nuclear dangers (see Annex II); and renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (see Annex IX).

Acting without a vote, it approved drafts on:  assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them; regional disarmament; the strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region; and the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention).

Also:  the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East; on consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlateloco); the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes; measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; and the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba).

General statements were made in the thematic debate by the representatives of the Russian Federation, Australia, Malawi, Colombia, Sweden, Austria, Jordan, United States, Angola, Cuba, Israel, Kenya, Iran, Netherlands, Moldova, United Republic of Tanzania, Finland, Italy, Cambodia and Cameroon.

The representatives of Syria, Cuba, Mexico, and Nigeria delivered general statements before the vote on items in Cluster 1.

Explanations of vote were delivered by the representatives of Portugal, Spain, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Israel, Brazil, Norway, Australia, Switzerland, France, Pakistan, Canada, Russian Federation, India, Guatemala, United States, Iran, Japan, Egypt, Venezuela and India.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 31 October, to continue its consideration of all disarmament and security-related draft texts.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to conclude its thematic debate on conventional weapons and to begin action on all draft resolutions submitted under disarmament and international security agenda items.

Thematic Debate Continued/Conventional Weapons

PETER LITAVRIN ( Russian Federation) said much still needed to be done with regard to the United Nations Programme to fight the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, including the development of the legal base, the strengthening of oversight over production and circulation, and arrangements for regional cooperation.  The mechanism that would allow States to identify and track illicit arms in a timely and reliable manner must also be completed, and the problem of insufficient State control over arms brokers should be settled, in part, by reducing the number of licensed brokers.  The Russian Federation had taken the radical step of licensing only one organization to provide broker services in the field of arms trade.

Turning to the issue of a global arms trade treaty, he said that the efficiency of existing regional and subregional instruments should be analysed, since their inefficiency was the basis for the need to develop a global treaty.  A determination of the feasibility, scope and requirements of such an instrument should begin with an analysis of why those mechanisms were failing, despite their having been elaborated with due account of the needs and specificity of each region.  Concerning the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects), the decisions adopted by the Third Review Conference last November on the mechanisms of verification should be strengthened with a resolution.

CRAIG MACLACHLAN ( Australia) said that more work needed to be done at the national, regional and global levels to “stem the tide of suffering” caused by small arms and light weapons.  The proliferation and illicit production and transfer of those weapons had proved to be an obstacle to security, stability and development.  The 2001 United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects played a “vital role” in stemming proliferation, and Australia had been working hard to reinvigorate it.  In that light, he welcomed the resolution co-authored by Colombia, South Africa and Japan in focusing attention on the Biennial Meeting of States in July 2008.

He said that common international standards on trade and transfer would strengthen efforts against the illicit proliferation of small arms and light weapons.  A well-crafted legally binding instrument would help to prevent illegal and irresponsible transfers.  Australia was also “gravely concerned” by the use of cluster munitions, which caused unacceptable harm to civilians.  His country would “contribute strongly” to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Oslo Process to address that humanitarian concern. 

Australia would table two resolutions this year, he said.  Concerned about man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS), it would table a resolution seeking tighter controls over MANPADS, thereby enhancing the security of regional communities, and helping to underpin their prosperity and growth (document A/C.1/62/L.38).  His delegation also submitted a resolution on the Mine Ban Convention (Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction), to be presented by Australia, Jordan and Croatia (document A/C.1/62/L.39).

STEVE D. MATENJE ( Malawi) said that his country had, in recent years, witnessed an increase in and alarming flow of small arms and light weapons from conflict areas, particularly in Africa.  That arms flow into Malawi caused fear among the citizens, due to the corresponding increase in armed robberies, burglaries, gender-based violence and other violent crimes, such as car jacking, which, until recently, were unheard of in Malawi.  Furthermore, the country’s natural resources, including wildlife, were being decimated by the reckless use of illegal weapons by poachers in the country’s game reserves and other areas.  That was harming the economy, as Malawi relied on those resources to boost its tourism industry and to preserve its natural heritage.  Moreover, the continued supply of small arms and light weapons was a real threat to peace and security, not only in Malawi, but in the whole of Africa, where those weapons were used to perpetuate armed conflicts and crime, causing immense casualties and creating massive refugee flows.  In short, those weapons were a catalyst to violence.

He said that the economic cost of armed violence represented resources lost to society, which could have been invested in projects to the benefit of the economy and populations, and to reduce poverty in Africa.  The vast majority of arms used to commit armed violence came from outside Africa.  The disarmament community, therefore, must play its part by assisting to remove illegal arms and prevent armed violence, in order to help Africa achieve the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals in a peaceful and secure environment.

Small arms and light weapons were also contributing to the spread of global terrorism, which, in most cases, was fanned by socio-economic deprivation and increasing poverty and desperation, as well as by racial, ethnic and religious intolerance, he said.   Malawi supported the ongoing efforts towards the elaboration of an arms trade treaty, which would be a significant step towards the standardization of international trade in conventional arms.

PEDRO A. ROA ARBOLEDA ( Colombia), on behalf of Japan, South Africa and 51 other delegations, introduced a draft resolution on illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/62/L.49).  The draft underlined the importance of achieving the speedy implementation of the 2001 Action Programme, and encouraged Member States to present, on a voluntary basis, information about the implementation of that Programme, as well as of the instrument on marking and tracing. 

He said that, building on General Assembly resolution 61/66 of 6 December 2006, the present draft would establish the dates of 14 to 18 July for the Third Biennial Meeting of States to take place in New York, to examine the implementation of the Action Programme at the national, regional and global levels.  The draft would add national, regional and global applications to paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 61/66.

The draft would take note of the group of governmental experts established to consider future measures to strengthen international cooperation on the prevention, combat and eradication of illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons.  It would also have States submit information about national efforts in the area, as well as efforts carried out in international cooperation.

A new paragraph would underline the need to coordinate efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eradicate the production, transfer and illicit circulation of small arms and light weapons, while also underlining the humanitarian and socio-economic consequences of the problem.

On behalf of the working group on needs and resources, under the Geneva process on small arms and light weapons,he said that the United Nations Programme of Action did not elaborate or offer guidance on how the needs of implementing States should be met, or how to mobilize existing resources to implement the Action Programme.  The working group had attempted to provide guidance on that issue.  Since States bore the responsibility to implement the Acton Programme, each must assess its own needs.  Where possible, States should invest some of their own resources, thereby providing incentives for further donor investment.  The working group was continuing to consider such issues as the need for donor coordination and means of matching needs with resources. 

MAGNUS HELLGREN ( Sweden) introduced a draft resolution on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.32).  He said the purpose of that Convention was to ban or restrict the use of certain types of weapons, and that was “as pertinent and pressing as ever”.  The Convention had more than 100 States parties, and with the adoption and entry into force of Protocol V on explosive remnants of war, it had shown that it was a “living and important instrument of international humanitarian law”.  He hoped that States which had not yet joined the Convention would do so.

He said that the purpose of the present draft resolution was to continue to express support for the Convention, with a focus on the universalization of the Convention and its Protocol.  The draft was intended to follow up on the Third Review Conference, held in November 2006.  He hoped that the resolution, as in previous years, could be adopted without a vote.

GERHARD PFANZELTER ( Austria) said that his country had been active and had established considerable expertise in the area of landmines.  The Mine Ban Convention had shown that much could be achieved.   Austria had also identified the issue of cluster munitions as a primary disarmament goal.  The consequences of those weapons had been highlighted in conflicts, showing the harm that they could cause, even many years after hostilities had ended.   Austria’s goal was to enable the swift clearance of affected areas and to assist victims of those weapons.  The implementation of a national moratorium was a good initiative towards addressing the problem of cluster munitions.  States should emulate those that had put in place such a moratorium and take similar measures.  Implementing national legislation was an even better approach.

In Austria, he noted, legislation had been passed to ban cluster munitions.   Austria was also working, together with other States, to address that challenge.  The country had pledged to work towards a legally binding international instrument on cluster munitions, which caused unacceptable harm to civilians.   Austria was pleased to note that more and more States were joining the efforts to achieve that goal.  The next meeting in support of that effort would be hosted by Austria from 5 to 7 December.  Invitations to the conference had been issued to all partners working towards a legally binding instrument.   Austria had also funded a substantial scholarship to enable delegates from countries in need to participate.

MOHAMMED AL-ALLAF ( Jordan) said that, while there had been significant progress in banning anti-personnel landmines and implementing the Mine Ban Convention, 40 States had yet to ratify or accede to it, and 13 States still produced landmines.  On the tenth anniversary of that treaty, he hoped that countries that had not yet joined that instrument would do so.  In November, Jordan would host the eighth meeting of States parties, which should be an opportunity for mine-affected countries to voice their concerns.

He said that Jordan, as a State party to the Mine Ban Convention, had completely destroyed all its stockpiles of anti-personnel mines in 2003, and hoped to be able to satisfy its treaty obligations by May 2009, without having to seek an extension.  It was important to universalize the Convention, and the accession of the four new States, in particular Kuwait and Iraq, had been welcome.  Jordan had joined Australia and Croatia in tabling the annual resolution on that Convention, and hoped it would receive the necessary support from Member States.

The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons continued to pose “numerous threats” to States and regions, disrupting peace, security and development, with grave consequences, he said.  Further, those illicit weapons had links to organized crime, terrorism and narcotics trafficking, thereby amplifying their danger and making them a matter of concern for all.  Combating that illicit trade required a “collective international and regional effort”.

The United Nations Action Programme on that illicit weapons trade remained the main framework for addressing that issue.  He supported the work of the open-ended working group to negotiate an international instrument on marking and tracing, as well as that of the group of governmental experts on brokering.

DAVID KENNEDY (United States) said that his country was a global leader in  efforts to mitigate the illicit brokering of small arms and light weapons, through multilateral diplomacy and bilateral assistance to countries in need, and an export law that had included brokering controls for more than a decade.  Its approach focused on practical, effective measures to address the problem of illicit small arms and light weapons brokering in conflict regions, where it was most urgent, while acknowledging the legitimacy of legal arms trade through regulation and licensing of the manufacture, export and import of arms.

He said his country was fully aware of the potentially adverse consequences of illicit arms transfers and, therefore, strictly regulated its exports, imports and retransfers of defence articles and defence services, to protect its national interests and the peace and security of regions of concern, and the broader international community.  The United States delegation had last year highlighted the importance of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and how it could establish greater transparency and accountability of arms transfers around the world.  He reiterated that support and re-emphasized the importance for all nations to enhance the transparency and accountability of their arms exports, as provided for in the Register and as called for in the small arms Action Programme.

The United States published its laws and regulations controlling the import and export of defence articles and defence services, and provided foreign policy guidance through the official publication of sanctions and embargoes, he went on.  It required any United States person involved in the manufacture or export of United States defence articles or defence services to register with the Government.  It also required those brokering to register, as well as foreign persons involved in brokering of United States defence articles or defence services.  The country also required a licence issued by the State Department for all exports and brokering of small arms and light weapons, with few exceptions.  Those licences were based on applications submitted by registered persons.  It also had a vigorous enforcement programme to ensure that all parties to an export or brokering transaction respected United States export laws and regulations.

VIRGILIO MARQUES DE FARIA ( Angola) said that his country remained deeply concerned about the illicit trade in and proliferation of small arms and light weapons, due to the negative impact on the security and stability of different regions of the world, particularly in Africa.  Those weapons destabilized regions, fuelled and prolonged conflict, undermined peace initiatives, destabilized relief programmes, exacerbated human rights abuses, hampered social and economic development, and fostered a culture of violence.

He said Angola stressed the importance of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Moratorium on Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms and Light Weapons, as well as the Southern African Development Community’s (SADC) Protocol on Control of Firearms, Ammunition and Other Related Materials; the Nairobi Declaration on the Problem of the Proliferation of Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons in the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa; and the Bamako Declaration on an African Common Position on the Illicit Proliferation, Circulation and Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons. 

If the efforts to combat illicit trade in small arms and light weapons were to succeed, the international community should better coordinate its endeavours, he said.  Agreed international measures to prevent that illicit trade, manufacture and trafficking, as well as to reduce excessive and destabilizing accumulations and transfers of those weapons in post-conflict situations, should be implemented.

Angola had established a National Commission for the disarmament of civilians, as well as a Commission for the implementation of the United Nations Action Programme on the small arms and light weapons trade, which it considered to be one of the greatest accomplishments of the country in its national commitment to address the challenges posed by those weapons, he said.  Various disarmament actions carried out from 1999 to 2007 had allowed for the collection of nearly 157,992 weapons of several calibres.  In addition, the country had accomplished the elaboration of the draft project for the disarmament of civilians; elaboration of the budget proposal for the disarmament of civilians; training seminars for disarmament instructors, with the help of the United Nations; and the exchange of experiences with neighbouring countries that had experienced a similar reality.

MARIETA GARCIA JORDAN ( Cuba) said that more sophisticated and deadly conventional arms were developed and used every day.  Military actions in the last few years had proved that the use of those weapons caused more and more “collateral damages”, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.  There was a major imbalance between the industrialized countries and the Non-Aligned countries in terms of production, possession and trade of conventional arms.  The industrialized countries should reduce the production of those weapons, in order to promote peace and security at the international and regional levels.  Cuba was concerned at the clear imbalance in the treatment given to certain categories of conventional arms, while others, including sophisticated conventional arms, were practically ignored. 

She said that, in order to achieve eradication of the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, the root causes of that problem must be tackled.  However, international efforts were mainly focused on addressing manifestations of that phenomenon in developing countries, and not in fighting the deepest and most determining causes, such as poverty, underdevelopment and lack of opportunities –- or the current international order, which is the main reason for the perpetuation of the vicious circle of exclusion and inequality.

Cuba supported the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and had fully complied with its commitments under the plan, she noted.  At the same time, it upheld the right of States to produce, import and keep small arms and light weapons to meet their security and defence needs.  International assistance and cooperation were “paramount” for the full implementation of the Action Programme.

She said her country, Cuba, was a State party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and shared the humanitarian concerns about the irresponsible use of anti-personnel mines.  However, her country had been subjected to “a policy of constant hostility and aggression by the military super Power”, and, as a result, it was impossible for Cuba to give up the use of those weapons to preserve its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  For that reason, Cuba was not a State party to the Mine Ban Convention.  It vowed, however, to continue to support all efforts to keep the necessary balance between humanitarian and national security issues, aimed at eliminating the terrible effects caused by landmines’ irresponsible use.

MEIR ITZCHAKI ( Israel) said that the uncontrolled spread of conventional weapons was a barrier to development and a stumbling block to peace and security.  The increased flow of weapons to terrorists had exacerbated that threat.  The man-portable air defence systems, short-, medium- and long-range missiles had been found in the hands of terrorists, turning them into the dominating power.  That phenomenon was global in nature, and constituted a “grave danger” to civilian populations.

He said that, although there were several instruments to address arms transfers to terrorists, there remained a need for a focused strategy to deal with that threat, in order to “turn a principle into practice”.  The best way to curb illicit arms proliferation was through strong national commitment and determination.  There was also a need for a “comprehensive and systematic approach” to the prevention of arms transfers to terrorists.  Long-enduring differences over definitions should be put aside for the sake of pragmatism.  One such step could be the identification of national programmes to increase awareness and build capacity.

The United Nations Programme of Action on small arms had made a “significant contribution” to international arms control efforts.  As a result, more States were aware of the urgent need to apply controls to such weapons.  Surplus small arms and light weapons were being destroyed, and standards on marking, record- keeping, and tracking were becoming globally accepted.  Israel was prepared to work with other States to identify standards for transfer controls to reduce the illicit trade in those weapons.  He welcomed the initiative by Canada to hold a meeting in Geneva on small arms and light weapons.

Israel had maintained a “vigorous” national export system throughout the years, and had recently embarked on a reform process to ensure that its export control system met international standards, he said.  In July, the Israeli Parliament had approved a new export control law, which applied controls over dual-use items, established a new licensing authority and put in place a new process for evaluating licensing applications.

He said his country was still not convinced that an international arms trade treaty could provide commonly agreed standards to enhance the level of care exercised by States in the sale or transfer of arms.  Israel also believed that, in developing such a treaty, attention should be accorded to the possibility that such an instrument could be politically abused against States seeking to obtain arms for legitimate purposes of self-defence. 

Meanwhile, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons was the only “credible and reliable” forum to address the humanitarian consequences caused by certain conventional weapons, he said, adding that other initiatives could undermine that Convention and divert resources from addressing its concerns.

ZACHARY D. MUBURI-MUITA ( Kenya) said that the problem of small arms and light weapons had brought a lot of anguish and untold suffering to his people.  In Kenya, urban crime had recently become more daring and brutal.  The commercialization of cattle rustling among the country’s pastoral communities had become entrenched in the society, leading to a great deal of loss of life and livelihood.  That was largely the scenario across the region, where, in addition, there was a multiplicity of combat groups operating with impunity across States.

He said that the region had spent immense effort and resources in resolving armed conflicts.  However, no sooner did it solve one conflict than another erupted with even more devastation.  Ongoing and incipient conflicts were prime markets for illicit firearms, as well as sources of those weapons.  While Kenya recognized that it was the task of a State to secure national stability, economic development and the human security of its people, it acknowledged the fact that the preponderant presence of illicit small arms and light weapons and their attendant effects contributed largely to the erosion of those goals.

Kenya had embraced all strategies aimed at arriving at viable solutions to the problem of illegal arms and light weapons, he said.  Nationally, it was firmly committed to the search for and removal of firearms in illicit circulation within its borders.  It had so far destroyed more than 20,000 assorted firearms by public burning.  That activity had been accompanied by public awareness programmes aimed at educating the citizenry on the evils of illicit firearms and the culture of violence.  At the regional level, it continued to invest heavily in the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

He said his country was persuaded that a universally applicable regime to control the manufacture and transfer of firearms was a key priority, particularly for its part of the world, which continued to suffer the effects of irresponsible transfers and management of small arms and light weapons.   Kenya remained committed to the actualization of the small arms Action Programme, as well as to taking a leading role in advocating the establishment of a legally binding treaty to control the arms trade.

REZA NAJAFI ( Iran) reaffirmed the right of States to acquire conventional arms for their legitimate self-defence and security needs.  Any arrangement for the regulation of conventional arms should be in conformity with the United Nations Charter, and it was essential to develop an “integrated approach” on this matter.  The illicit arms trade was not a major problem, and there was no urgent need for it to be dealt with at this point.  Arms transfers were covered by the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, and were largely transparent.  An international instrument to monitor the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons had been adopted in late 2005 as part of the United Nations Programme of Action.  That effort should not suddenly be abandoned and overlooked. 

Unfortunately, he said, certain major exporters of small arms and light weapons had not implemented the Action Programme, and there had been a disagreement on substantial issues in the 2006 Review Conference.  The overproduction of arms could lead to an excessive supply of weapons, facilitating their entry into areas of conflict.  The export of arms to the Middle East was a clear example of that.  The announcement by the United States of its plan to export arms to the Middle East was a problem, not only for Iran, but for many countries, as that had raised the spectre of an arms race in the region.

At the national level, Iran had enforced effective measures to curb the illicit trafficking of such weapons, he said.  In order to deal with illegal transfer of arms, Iran declared its readiness to exchange views with other Member States, and awaited the outcome of the group of governmental experts on the arms trade treaty.  Meanwhile, Iran would reserve its right to present substantial comment on that item.

JOHANNES LANDMAN ( Netherlands) said his country welcomed the joint statement made by the United States and the Russian Federation to the First Committee regarding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.  The Netherlands stood ready to impart a global character to that regime, as requested in that joint statement.

He then introduced a draft resolution on national legislation on the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology (document A/C.1/62/L.12), saying that it would encourage Member States to provide the required information on a voluntary basis to the Secretary-General, including changes therein.  The effective national control of those transfers was an important tool for achieving disarmament and arms control. 

The Netherlands had tabled that resolution before, in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.  In 2005, it had decided to table it every other year.  The current text had been updated to take into account the establishment of an electronic database by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.  Other changes had been the result of regular updates.  For the last three years, the text had been adopted by consensus.  His country hoped that the present text would meet with the approval of all Member States, and that it would also be adopted by consensus.

ALEXANDRU CUJBA ( Moldova), aligning himself with the statement made by the European Union, said that a multilateral approach was the “only feasible modality” to tackle the threats and challenges to international peace and security.  The continuing illicit manufacture, accumulation, transfer and spread of small arms and light weapons was a serious challenge to efforts to defuse tension in many conflict zones, reduce poverty and ensure sustainable development.  It was necessary to implement the United Nations Action Programme and overcome the stalemate in the small arms and light weapons field.

He said his country had recently amended its legislation in order to enforce the national arms control regime, and the country had introduced a State monopoly on the production and sale of weapons and explosives.  Law enforcement agencies consistently seized and destroyed weapons from civilian populations, while actions on the national level were backed by Moldova’s participation in the regional and subregional arrangements in South-Eastern Europe.

However, the Government’s ability to deal with the problems of small arms and light weapons was hindered by the unresolved conflict in the Eastern regions of the country.  While Moldova was striving to implement the relevant provisions of international treaties and arrangements, illegal activities were flourishing in the breakaway region, where the separatist regime was consolidating its military capabilities and not accepting any verification missions. 

Earlier this month, the President of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin, had published new initiatives proposing that the Transdnistrian leadership embark on disarmament and demilitarization measures in parallel with Moldova, he noted.  The proposals had been welcomed by the parties involved in the settlement process, and he hoped they would be embraced by the other side, generating a “serious momentum” to the comprehensive solution of the Transdnistrian conflict.

He said the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe was of particular significance, as one of the most far reaching arms control, disarmament and confidence-building measures in Europe.  Moldova declared its readiness to ratify the modified Treaty, after the Russian Federation fulfilled its 1999 Istanbul commitments on withdrawal of its military presence from Moldova’s territory –- a prerequisite for Moldova’s ratification.

JUSTIN SERUHERE (United Republic of Tanzania) said that on 16 July 2006, his country had submitted views on the proposal for an arms trade treaty.  He also reiterated his country’s support for the General Assembly’s long-standing call for both the full implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and other disarmament conventions, and urged for a speedy conclusion of a comprehensive arms control treaty.

He said that curbing the illicit circulation of small arms and light weapons was yet to be fully accomplished.  He joined other delegations in expressing great concern at the massive loss of lives, property and human dignity those weapons caused, especially in developing countries in Africa.  His country had made considerable efforts in collecting and destroying small arms and light weapons, including unexploded ordnance.

On efforts to address illicit circulation and proliferation, his country had proposed that an inter-session meeting for the African region be held before the next Biennial States Meeting, he said.  That would provide Member States, the international community and other stakeholders with a forum to comprehensively address the problem and its attendant consequences through increased international cooperation.  The meeting should be held between April and May 2008.

TEEMU SEPPONEN (Finland), referring to the Joint Statement by the Russian Federation and the United States on 25 October, said that the conclusion of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty had been a “milestone” in international disarmament efforts.  The Treaty was a pillar of the global and European security architecture, and Finland welcomed the “significant reaffirmation” by the Russian Federation and the United States of their commitment to it.

CARLO TREZZA ( Italy) agreed that that Treaty was a milestone in international efforts and a major contributing factor in reducing the tension between the two former alliance systems.  It remained one of the pillars in the global, and particularly European, security architecture.   Italy welcomed the reaffirmation made by the Russian Federation and the United States of their continued support for that Treaty.  The proposal outlined by those countries in their joint statement before the First Committee should be seen as an effort to strengthen the international missile non-proliferation and disarmament process, which Italy supported.

YAUNG CHAN SOPHEA ( Cambodia) said that small arms, while small, were a big concern, and were a root cause of transnational crime and regional conflict.  The illegal use of such weapons led to terrorism and regional conflicts.  His country was at the forefront in the fight against the problem.  Cambodia had developed many of its own national programmes, leading to the destruction of more than 200,000 small arms and light weapons.

He said that landmines were another threat to many in the developing world, especially in post-conflict countries.  They were a humanitarian problem as well, as their victims were traumatized and suffered spiritual crises.  Despite peace after years of conflict, Cambodia remained one of the most heavily mined countries in the world, and nearly half the population was threatened by landmines -- those “silent killers”.  Mine clearance, therefore, was one of the most essential activities for the rehabilitation of the country.  More than 1.5 million landmines had been cleared in Cambodia to date.  In March, Cambodia had hosted a conference on mine action to mark the tenth anniversary of the Mine Ban Convention.  He called on all countries to become parties to that treaty.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon), on behalf of the Central African States, introduced a draft resolution on the activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions of in Central Africa (document A/C.1/62/L.52).  That Committee was established in 1992 and tasked with developing specific measures to strengthen confidence in the development of the Central Africa region.  Since its establishment, it had registered several achievements and contributed to the establishment of a new collective security system in the subregion.

He said that the draft text regarding the activities of the Advisory Committee was usually adopted by consensus.  Delegations should, as usual, give their support to the draft.  This year’s draft was more concise than previous ones, and included the Sao Tome initiative dealing with small arms and light weapons in the region, as well as with cross-border security problems.  It also reaffirmed the General Assembly report to promote confidence-building measures regionally and reduce tension and conflicts in the region.  In addition, it encouraged member States of the Committee to implement Security Council resolution 1540 (2004).  The sponsors hoped that the draft would be adopted by consensus.

General Statements on Cluster One

The representative of Syria took the floor to discuss the draft resolution on the danger of nuclear proliferation (document A/C.1/62/L.2).  While nuclear arsenals were being developed and enhanced, and nuclear-weapon States had refrained from fulfilling the obligations and promises they had made, States were being pressured not to acquire the means to defend their sovereignty.  While he looked forward to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, Israel had acquired those weapons outside the framework of the non-proliferation regime and was disregarded, while States parties were prevented from using technology for peaceful purposes.  Israel persisted in a policy of aggression, based on a huge arsenal of conventional and non-conventional weapons and nuclear weapons.  Therefore, the Middle East region was vulnerable to threats and distortions of facts. 

He said that Syria had been among the first States to call for a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone, and it had contributed to numerous initiatives aimed at achieving that objective.  The failure to adopt such an initiative encouraged Israel in its refusal to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  In that light, he called on the international community to bring pressure to bear on Israel to join that and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regime.

Also speaking on Cluster One on nuclear weapons, the representative of Cuba said that, in the past, her country had co-sponsored several draft resolutions on that subject, and this year, it had co-sponsored a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/62/L.40).   Cuba was particularly pleased that the text had included proposals it had put forward.  That draft dealt most completely with the question of nuclear disarmament.

On behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean countries, the representative of Mexico introduced a draft resolution on the consolidation of the regime established in the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/C.1/62/L.10).

He noted that there was a correction in paragraph 3, line 3, so that the line that had initially read “fulfil agreements reached” became “implement the declaration adopted”.  He emphasized that, as a measure to revitalize the First Committee, it would be a triennial arrangement.  A fundamental principle of the resolution was that military denuclearized zones were not a goal in themselves, but, rather, were a means to achieve general disarmament.

On behalf of the African Group, the representative of Nigeria announced technical changes to the draft resolution on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/62/L.25).  On operative paragraphs 5 and 9, the reference should read sixty-fourth session.  The changes also concerned the draft resolution on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) (document A/C.1/62/L.26), where operative paragraph 6 should also read sixty-fourth session.  The Group hoped that the revision would not pose a problem for delegations in supporting the text.

Action on Draft Resolutions/Decisions

The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/62/L.2), said he would vote in favour of that draft resolution.  He called on all States in the region to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The European Union supported the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. 

At the same time, he signalled that the draft resolution had neglected several issues, in particular, the international community’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme.  He deplored Iran’s defiance of the international community by continuing its uranium enrichment activities, and he appreciated the IAEA’s continuing efforts on the issue.  In order for the international community to feel confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran’s programme, it was necessary for the IAEA to be able to provide assurances of Iran’s activities, and he urged Iran to cooperate fully with that Agency, and to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 ((2006), and 1747 (2007).  In view of the fact that Iran had not suspended uranium enrichment, the Union would also support another United Nations resolution on the issue.

The representative of Spain, in connection with the draft resolution on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) (document A/C.1/62/L.26), said his country had always felt that nuclear-weapon-free zones, created through agreements that were freely entered into, were a major contribution to enhancing international security through nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.   Spain had unequivocally expressed support for the Pelindaba Treaty, but having studied the invitation to sign the protocol to that Treaty, it had decided not to proceed to sign it because the Treaty did not contain provisions concerning nuclear non-proliferation, which his country had already committed to for all its territories.  By carrying out unilateral action, Spain had already committed itself not to “nuclearize”.  As a country belonging to the IAEA, Spain and its territories were under international safeguards and had exceeded the Treaty’s requirements.  Signing the protocol, therefore, would be redundant, as Spain had been shouldering broad-based commitments in nuclear non-proliferation.

He stressed that all Spanish nuclear installations were devoted exclusively to peaceful use.  However, his delegation had joined consensus on the draft resolution in the past, but the wording in the text should be better balanced in operative paragraphs 2 and 3.  All efforts made by Spain to achieve a better balance in that regard had been for naught.  That situation was not satisfactory to the Spanish delegation.   Spain would not question the consensus now, but regretted that the messages of understanding it had received in African capitals had not been reflected.  It would continue consultations on the matter.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he resented preambular paragraph 11 of the draft resolution on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.30), which strengthened the importance of Security Council resolution 1718 (2006).  That resolution was a “clear proof” of the irresponsible and unfair acts of the Security Council.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s test had posed no threat to any country, and in fact was a war deterrent, which increased security in the Korean peninsula, ensuring a balance of power.  No solution would be found by resorting to sanctions and pressure, as proved by history.

The representative of Israel said that the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, “L.2”, called into question whether it had any connection to the reality in the region.  The danger of nuclear proliferation in that region came from issues like Iran’s total disregard of IAEA and Security Council resolutions.  The draft focused entirely on Israel, while overlooking the profound hostility of the countries in the region toward his country.  The adoption of the resolution would not serve the goal of curbing proliferation in the region.   Israel called upon delegations to vote against it.

The representative of Brazil took the floor to explain his affirmative vote on three draft resolutions:  “L.21”, “L.23” and “L.30”.

On “L.21”, reducing nuclear danger, he said he supported preambular paragraph 4, as well as the review of nuclear doctrines called for in operative paragraph 1.  Reducing nuclear danger could not be a substitute for true disarmament.  Further, he qualified the view expressed in preambular paragraph 1, which said that the use of nuclear weapons were the gravest threat to mankind.  In fact, the mere existence of those weapons was a grave risk to the whole world.

Concerning resolution “L.23”, on a convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, he said he supported preambular paragraph 3 on the subject of a multilateral binding agreement.  However, negative security assurances were no substitute for true disarmament.

On “L.30”, renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, he said that, as a member of the New Agenda Coalition, Brazil would vote in favour of that text because, as stated in preambular paragraph 1, all States should take steps towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.  Brazil traditionally supported the position taken in operative paragraph 1, reaffirming the need for compliance by all States parties with their obligations under all articles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it also supported the position in operative paragraph 3, on that Treaty’s universality.  He stressed the importance of moratoriums on nuclear weapons test explosions, and urged all States to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

The representative of Norway associated her country with the views expressed by Portugal’s delegation on behalf of the European Union.

Australia’s, representative, explaining his vote on “L.2”, said he supported a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, as well as the universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the right of all Middle Eastern States to live in peace.  However, his country continued to have problems with the resolution, notably its emphasis on Israel with no reference to other nuclear States.  In September 2005, the IAEA had found Iran in non-compliance with nuclear safeguards, and had required suspension of uranium enrichment activities.  Yet, the resolution made no reference to the international community’s concerns in that regard.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East (document A/C.1/62/L.1).

The draft resolution would have the Assembly urge all parties that were directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of the proposal to establish such a zone.  The draft would call upon all countries of the region that had not done so, pending the establishment of the zone, to agree to place all their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards.  Furthermore, the draft would have the Assembly invite those countries not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit the stationing of such weapons or nuclear explosive devices on their territories, or territories under their control.

The draft resolution was adopted without a vote.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/61/L.2).

That draft resolution would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of Israel’s accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and placement of all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.  It would call upon Israel to accede to the Treaty without further delay and not develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and place all of its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards.

A separate vote was requested on the sixth preambular paragraph, which reads, “Recognizing with satisfaction that in the final document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons, the Conference undertook to make determined efforts towards the goal of universality of the Treaty, called upon those remaining States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities, and  underlined the necessity of universal adherence to the Treaty and of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the Treaty”.

The Committee voted to retain that paragraph by 161 in favour to 3 against ( India, Israel, United States), with 6 abstentions ( Bhutan, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Pakistan, Uganda).  (For details of the vote, see Annex I)

The draft resolution as a whole was then approved by a vote of 164 in favour to 3 against ( Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 6 abstentions ( Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Cote d’Ivoire, India, Ethiopia) (Annex II).

The Committee then took up the draft decision on the “United Nations conference to identify appropriate ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/62/L.6), by which the General Assembly would decide to include that item on the provisional agenda of its sixty-third session.

The draft decision was approved by a vote of 123 in favour to 3 against ( France, United Kingdom, United States), with 44 abstentions (Annex III).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.8).

The draft text would have the Assembly call for practical steps, as agreed at the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty, to be taken by all nuclear-weapon States, that would lead to nuclear disarmament in a way that promoted international stability, as follows:  further efforts by nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally; increased transparency with regard to nuclear weapons capabilities, and the implementation by nuclear-weapon States of agreements pursuant to article VI of the Treaty, and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress in nuclear disarmament; further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons; concrete agreed measures to reduce further the operational status of nuclear weapons systems; a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies so as to minimize the risk that these weapons would ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination; and the engagement, as soon as appropriate, of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons. 

Further, the draft would urge States parties to the Treaty to follow up on the implementation of obligations agreed to at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the parties to the Treaty, within the framework of the 2010 Review Conference, and would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-fourth session an item entitled “Follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”.

A separate vote was requested on preambular paragraph 6.  It reads, as follows:  “reaffirming the resolution on the Middle East adopted on 11 May 1995 by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty, in which the Conference reaffirmed the importance of the early realization of universal adherence to the Treaty and placement of nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards”.

The Committee voted to retain that paragraph by 102 in favour to 48 against, with 11 abstentions (Annex IV).

The full resolution was then adopted by a vote of 103 in favour to 53 against, with 15 abstentions (Annex V). 

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) (document A/C.1/62/L.10).

That draft would have the Assembly welcome the fact that the Treaty of Tlatelolco was now in force, and would urge the countries of the region that had not done so to deposit their instruments of ratification of the Treaty’s amendments.  It would encourage States members of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean to continue their activities and efforts, with a view to implementation of the agreements reached at the first Conference of States Parties and Signatories to Treaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones.  The Assembly would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its sixty-fifth session.

The draft resolution, as orally amended, was approved without a vote.

The Committee next took up a draft decision on missiles (document A/C.1/62/L.20), by which the Assembly would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its sixty-third session.

The draft decision was adopted by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 6 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, Israel, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States), with 51 abstentions (Annex VI).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/62/L.21).

By its terms, the Assembly would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons, including through de-alerting and de-targeting of nuclear weapons.  The Assembly would request the five nuclear-weapon States to take measures towards the implementation of that provision, and would call upon Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects, and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons. 

Further, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to intensify efforts and support initiatives that would contribute towards the full implementation of the seven recommendations, identified in the report of the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, that would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear war, and also to continue to encourage Member States to consider the convening of an international conference, as proposed in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session. 

The Committee approved that draft resolution by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 50 against, with 13 abstentions (Annex VII). 

The Committee then turned to a draft resolution on a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.23), by which the Assembly would reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances.  It would further request the Conference to report to it on the results of those negotiations.

By a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 50 against, with 11 abstentions, the Committee approved the draft (Annex VIII). 

Next, the Committee took up a draft resolution on prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/61/L.25), by which the Assembly would express grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States.  It would call upon all States to take appropriate measures, with a view to preventing any dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes that would infringe upon the sovereignty of States.

It would take note of the part of the report of the Conference on Disarmament relating to a future convention prohibiting radiological weapons, and request the Conference to take into account, in the negotiations for such a convention, radioactive wastes as part of the scope of the convention, and to intensify efforts towards an early conclusion of the instrument.

The Assembly would also appeal to all Member States that had not yet taken the necessary steps to become party to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management to do so as soon as possible.

The draft resolution, as orally revised, was approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) (document A/C.1/62/L.26), which would have the Assembly call upon African States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as possible, so that it may enter into force without delay.  It would express its appreciation to the nuclear-weapon States that have signed the Protocols that concern them, and call upon those that have not yet ratified the Protocols concerning them to do so as soon as possible.

In addition, the Assembly would callupon the States contemplated in Protocol III to the Treaty that have not yet done so to take all necessary measures to ensure the speedy application of the Treaty to territories for which they were, de jure or de facto, internationally responsible, and that lie within the limits of the geographical zone established in the Treaty.

The draft resolution, as orally amended, was approved without a vote.

The Committee next took up a draft resolution on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.30).

Under the draft text, the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of compliance by all States parties to the Non‑Proliferation Treaty with their obligations under all the Treaty’s articles and stress the importance of an effective Treaty review process.  It would also reaffirm the importance of the universality of the Treaty, and call upon States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States without delay and without conditions, and, pending their accession, to refrain from acts that would defeat the objective and purpose of the Treaty, as well as to take practical steps in support of the Treaty.

Among the text’s other terms, the Assembly would 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 that Treaty, while welcoming the progress made by nuclear-weapon States, including the Russian Federation and the United States, on nuclear arms reductions.

The Assembly would stress the necessity of a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies, to minimize the risk that these weapons will ever be used and emphasize the importance of the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and its early conclusion.  It would call upon all nuclear-weapon States and States not parties to the Non‑Proliferation Treaty to declare moratoriums on the production of fissile material for any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, pending the entry into force of the treaty.

The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 3 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, United States), with 10 abstentions (Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan) (Annex IX).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.36), by which the Assembly would underline once again the unanimous conclusion of the International Court that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.  It would call once again upon all States to immediately fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations, leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

The Committee approved that draft resolution by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 25 against, with 29 abstentions (Annex X).

The Committee then turned to a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/62/L.40), which would have the Assembly reaffirm that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are substantively interrelated and mutually reinforcing, that the two processes must go hand in hand and that there is a genuine need for a systematic and progressive process of nuclear disarmament.

The Assembly would also urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems and to, as an interim measure, de-alert and deactivate immediately their nuclear weapons, and to take other concrete measures to reduce further the operational status of their nuclear-weapon systems.

The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 45 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex XI).

Next, the Committee took up a draft resolution on conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.44).

By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.  The Assembly would note with satisfaction that in the Conference on Disarmament there is no objection, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all have also been pointed out.

Among its other provisions, the Assembly would recommend that the Conference on Disarmament actively continue intensive negotiations with a view to reaching early agreement and concluding effective international agreements to assure the non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, taking into account the widespread support for the conclusion of an international convention and giving consideration to any other proposals designed to secure the same objective.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 120 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 54 abstentions (Annex XII).

The representative of Switzerland said that he had voted again in favour of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, “L.2”, since the text was designed to achieve the universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and, therefore, addressed itself to the only country in the region that had not ratified that Treaty.  His country was also aware of the importance of fulfilling existing obligations, and would continue to call for the full participation of States with the IAEA regime.

He added that Switzerland fully supported Security Council resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747 (2007) requesting Iran to conform to its obligations as soon as possible.  Again on resolution “L.2”, he said his country understood the text to be an appeal to avoid proliferation in the entire region, taking into account developments all across the region.

Speaking after action on the draft resolution on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, “L.1”, the representative of Israel said his country had not blocked consensus, notwithstanding its reservations on certain elements, since Israel was committed to the vision of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.   Israel was realistic enough to know that that noble vision would not materialize soon, but the country had decided to maintain the consensus.

He said his country had always maintained that nuclear, and indeed all regional security issues, could only be addressed within the regional context.  The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone should emanate from the region, arrived at through direct negotiations within the region, and not imposed from the outside before conditions for such a zone had ripened.  There was a need for a gradual process and a step-by-step approach, beginning with modest confidence- building measures, followed by the establishment of peaceful relations, mutual recognition and good-neighbourliness.  Such a process was also grounded in the vast experience gained in other regions.

Threats to Israel were exacerbated by the irresponsible actions of some States, including the export of weapons of mass destruction to the region.  There was also a poor track record of compliance with international measures by several States in the region.  Three of the four records of nuclear non-compliance had taken place in the Middle East, and Iran was still not showing signs of compliance.  There must be a fundamental change in regional circles, and a changed attitude towards Israel.

Explaining his abstention in the vote on the draft resolution on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, “L.30”, France’s speaker said he understood Japan’s devotion to the cause, but the text of the resolution continued to engender difficulties.  In 2005 and 2006, France had supported the resolution.  However, reservations remained, and he pointed especially to operative paragraphs 4 and 7, which asked for “irreversibility” and for new reductions of alert levels.  That could only work in a “disconnected” way, given the instability of the present moment.

Continuing, he said that France would like to retain the efforts on transparency as a voluntary measure.  Operative paragraph 8 was very different from the language France had supported.  For France’s security, a nuclear deterrent was of “prime importance”.  At the same time, France did not want to be seen as undermining efforts or refraining from working towards the implementation of article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  France had dismantled its centre in the Pacific and its production facilities, thus reducing its nuclear arsenal.

The representative of Pakistan, supplying an explanation of his votes on “L.30” and “L.40”, said he disagreed with several provisions, which had put a “lopsided” emphasis on non-proliferation, rather than on disarmament, which was tantamount to an aggression in that vital area.  Moreover, he could not accept the call to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon State, nor did Pakistan consider itself bound by the statements of any forums in which it was not represented.  Therefore, Pakistan had abstained.

The representative of Canada, explaining his abstention in the vote on resolution “L.2”, said that, last year, his country had expressed concern with the lack of balance in that text, as well as the lack of references to other nuclear Powers in the region.  The issue of Iran’s nuclear activities remained unresolved, and Iran remained in non-compliance with its international obligations under Security Council resolutions 1747 (2007), 1737 (2006), and 1696 (2006).  Iran had chosen to ignore those obligations and the efforts of the international community to arrive at an equitable solution.

He said that, if the goal of “L.2” was the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, then the content should address the obligations of all States in the region to clear and unequivocal adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  In the absence of more balanced language in that regard, Canada had abstained, but it had voted to retain preambular paragraph 6.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that his country had always advocated strengthening the non-proliferation regime for missiles.  The country had ratified and implemented all realistic agreements on disarmament, and had supported the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones, including in the Middle East.  Such a zone would be in the long-term national interest of all States in the region, and would foster a political settlement of the Middle East problem.

He said he had voted in support of resolution “L.30”, considering that it was a good example of a balanced combination of the various aspects to do with non-proliferation.  His country supported the idea of lowering the alert levels of nuclear weapons.  The full elimination of nuclear weapons was only possible through a gradual and integrated approach, and, thus, his delegation had not supported all resolutions where it did not find the necessary balanced approach.

India’s representative said that India’s position on nuclear weapons was well known.  On draft resolution “L.25”, he had joined the consensus and had been fully supportive of the text’s objective.  The international community must remain vigilant to the dangers of radioactive waste.  As a developing country, India placed high importance on full use of the fuel cycle.

He said he fully shared the basic intent of “L.30”.   India was appreciative of Japan’s commitment to that goal, but the draft contained certain elements that were not acceptable to India, such as the call to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Thus, India had been constrained to vote against the draft.  On “L.40”, India shared the objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world and remained committed to achieving that goal, but it had been constrained to abstain from the vote because of certain references to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Explaining his vote on “L.8”, the representative of Guatemala said his country believed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty was the pillar of disarmament, and as a party to it, Guatemala respected all of its provisions.  The Review Conferences served to strengthen the Treaty.  However, Guatemala believed that other resolutions in the Security Council had placed “L.8” in a doubtful context, and, therefore, Guatemala had abstained in the vote.

The representative of the United States explained her votes on “L.2”, “L.20”, “L.30”, and “L.44”.  On “L.2”, she had voted “no”, because the United States believed that the resolution had “failed to meet the fundamental tests of fairness and balance”, confining itself to references about the activities of a single country, and not alluding to the steps being taken by some Non-Proliferation Treaty States parties in the region to acquire nuclear weapons.  Further, it did not comment on the failure of some States to conclude safeguards agreements.

On “L.20”, she said the United States had repeatedly made it clear that it disagreed with the inclusion of the item entitled “missiles” on the agenda.  She, therefore, had voted against the decision.

She said “L.30” was the most “balanced and realistic” resolution introduced on nuclear disarmament.  She praised, among other things, its support for compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its call for negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, and its stress on Security Council resolution 1718 (2006).  However, she said, the United States would continue to vote against that resolution because of its support for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty in operative paragraph 9.  The United States opposed that Treaty.

Explaining that her country had also voted against “L.44”, she reiterated that the United States opposed any proposal for any form of negative security assurances treaty, or other globally, legally binding security assurances regime.

The representative of Iran said that, for nearly three decades, the General Assembly had consistently recognized that the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East would enhance peace and security.  Adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty was essential to the establishment of such a zone.  Israel was the only Middle Eastern State not party to that Treaty, and by refusing to submit to international monitoring, Israel had become the only impediment to establishing such a zone.  Meaningful actions on that subject were required.

Unfortunately, he said, the United States was actively hindering meaningful action on that issue, through its hypocritical actions and double standards.  Indifference towards Israel’s nuclear weapons was not an option, and he urged certain European countries to avoid inconsistency in that regard.

If Western States continued to turn blind eyes to that proliferation threat, they would lose their remaining credibility in the Middle East, he said.  Iran remained committed to the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, and would continue to work together with like-minded countries.

The representative of Japan, speaking on his vote “L.36”, said that Japan appreciated the position that the use of nuclear weapons was clearly contrary to humanitarianism.  His country stressed that nuclear weapons should never be used again.  The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice had demonstrated the complex nature of that subject.   Japan firmly believed that concrete measures must be taken in a step-by-step process to achieve progress.  It believed that steady incremental progress should be made, prior to embarking on what the draft resolution called all States to do.

He said that his country shared the ultimate goal of “L.40”.   Japan had taken note of the positive elements in that resolution and the reference to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.  However, the text did not contain the elements for the international community to form agreements on nuclear disarmament.  The steps towards that process should be realistic.   Japan, therefore, preferred to see a different approach than what was laid out in that draft and, as such, it had abstained.

Japan supported draft resolution “L.44”, he said.  Negative assurances should be, without prejudice, negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament.

The representative of Egypt, explaining his vote on “L.8”, said he had supported that draft because it was in line with Egypt’s call for full implementation of obligations to move towards nuclear disarmament, particularly the obligations agreed at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the 13 practical steps.  At the same time, he regretted that some had opposed preambular paragraph 6, which emphasized the importance of the resolution on the Middle East, issued by 1995 Review Conference.

On “L.30”, he said that, while he supported the goals of that resolution and many of its elements on nuclear disarmament, it was important that it reflect all the elements of the 1995 Review Conference and the Final Document of 2000 Review Conference.  The resolution should reflect the obligations of the nuclear-weapon States.  Similarly, operative paragraph 11, concerning a ban on fissile material, ran counter to the consensus achieved at the Conference on Disarmament and the 2000 Review Conference.  Furthermore, operative paragraph 13 did not reflect the legal reality of the IAEA.

The representative of Venezuela said that the delegation voted in favour of “L.30”.  The existence of nuclear weapons was a threat to the existence of mankind.  The most effective way of achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world was for all States to follow and adhere to the provisions established in international treaties.  States that had nuclear weapons should implement the measures contained in the outcomes of the Review Conferences of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with regard to the non-use of such weapons.

The representative of India, turning to draft resolution “L.22”, proposed two technical amendments.  First, he asked that the word “all” be deleted in operative paragraph 2.  Next, in that same paragraph, he called for the deletion of the words “signing and ratifying”, to be replaced with the words “accession and ratification of”.

The Committee then took up draft resolution on implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction (document A/C.1/62/L.7*).

By its terms, the Assembly would emphasize that the universality of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction was fundamental to that Convention’s objective and purpose.  It would urge all States parties to the Convention to meet in full and on time their obligations under the Convention and to support the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in its implementation activities.

Further, the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of article XI provisions on the economic and technological development of States parties.  It would also note with appreciation the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to achieve the objective and purpose of the Convention, and would decide to include in the provisional agenda of the sixty-third session the item entitled “implementation of the convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction”.

The draft resolution was adopted without a vote.

Next, the Committee turned to a draft resolution on measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction (document A/C.1/62/L.22), which would have the Assembly call upon all Member States to support international efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.  The Assembly would appeal to all Member States to consider early signing and ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.  Further, it would urge Member States to take and strengthen national measures, as appropriate, to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and materials and technologies related to their manufacture, and would invite them to inform the Secretary-General, on a voluntary basis, of the measures taken in this regard.

Further, the Assembly would encourage cooperation among and between Member States and relevant regional and international organizations for strengthening national capacities in this regard.  It would request the Secretary-General to compile a report on measures already taken by international organizations on issues relating to the linkage between the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and seek the views of Member States on additional relevant measures for tackling the global threat posed by the acquisition by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction and to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session.

The draft resolution, as orally amended, was adopted without a vote.

The representative of Pakistan said his country supported draft resolution “L.22”, but the language could have been modified.  The danger referred to in the text needed to be viewed in perspective.  Terrorists were more likely to acquire and use chemical and biological weapons.  That draft resolution should not be an excuse to go against selected countries.  Further, the international community must not lower its guard against dirty bombs.  It was necessary for all States to enact and enforce physical measures and export controls to stop weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists.

In addition, he said, interim measures such as Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) should be taken up by a more inclusive and representative forum.  Faithfulness to existing regimes would address most of the present threats.  As long as the process of chemical disarmament continued at a slow pace, the risk of those weapons falling into the hands of terrorists would persist.  The Biological Weapons Convention should be strengthened.  Pakistan was convinced that a comprehensive strategy must be evolved to prevent terrorists from acquiring dangerous weapons.

The representative of Brazil spoke on the draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/62/L.34).  In the last 10 years, Brazil had supported several proposals on that issue in the Conference on Disarmament.  The present proposal could well lead to the negotiation of international instruments, including on the prevention of an outer space arms race.  He regretted the continued stalemate in the Conference, and requested States to continue consultations in Geneva.  Brazil believed it was vital to prevent the weaponization of outer space, and to ensure the safe use of that final frontier for all mankind.  His country, therefore, would vote in favour of “L.34”.

The draft resolution on prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/62/L.34) would have the Assembly call upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and of the prevention of an arms race in outer space and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to the relevant existing treaties in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation.  It would reiterate that the Conference on Disarmament, as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, has the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements, as appropriate, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects.

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

The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 170 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel) (Annex XIII).

The representative of Portugal, in explanation of vote after the vote, on behalf of the European Union, said the members of the Union had voted in favour of the draft on preventing an outer space arms race, although it did not consider that the draft fully took into account recent developments.

The representative of Japan said his country had also supported the draft, but added that the issue of preventing an outer space arms race should be without prejudice, and based on ongoing discussions in the Conference on Disarmament.

The Committee then took up drafts in Cluster 4, on conventional weapons, turning first to a draft resolution on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them (document A/C.1/62/L.5).

That draft resolution, which was approved without a vote, would have the Assembly encourage cooperation among State organs, international organizations and civil society in supporting programmes and projects aimed at combating the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them.  It would also callupon the international community to provide technical and financial support to strengthen the capacity of civil society organizations to take action to help to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.

By a further term, the Assembly would invitethe Secretary-General and those States and organizations in a position to do so to continue to assist States in curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them.

The Committee then took up Cluster 5 on regional disarmament and security.

The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union before the vote on strengthening security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/62/L.48), welcomed the text and expressed the hope that it would be adopted without a vote.  The Union believed that security in Europe was closely linked to peace and security in the Mediterranean and to international security.  It reiterated its satisfaction with Libya’s decision to eliminate all its programmes on weapons of mass destruction.  There were a number of important events.  Among them, the Union welcomed the fact that the eighth meeting of States parties to the Mine Ban Treaty would be held in Jordan.

Acting without a vote, the Committee next approved a draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/62/L.31), by which the Assemblywould affirm that global and regional approaches to disarmament complement each other and should, therefore, be pursued simultaneously to promote regional and international peace and security.  The Assembly would call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels.

The Committee then turned to a draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/62/L.42), by which the Assembly would decide to give urgent consideration to the issues involved in conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels and request the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation of principles that can serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control.

The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against ( India), with 1 abstention ( Bhutan) (Annex XIV).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/62/L.48), approving it without a vote.

By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm that security in the Mediterranean is closely linked to European security, as well as to international peace and security, and recognize that the elimination of the economic and social disparities in levels of development and other obstacles, as well as respect and greater understanding among cultures in the Mediterranean area, will contribute to enhancing peace, security and cooperation among Mediterranean countries through the existing forums.

The Assembly would encourage all States of the region to favour the necessary conditions for strengthening the confidence-building measures among them by promoting genuine openness and transparency on all military matters, by participating, inter alia, in the United Nations system for the standardized reporting of military expenditures and by providing accurate data and information to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.  It would also encouragethe Mediterranean countries to strengthen further their cooperation in combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including the possible resort by terrorists to weapons of mass destruction.

The representative of India, speaking on draft resolution “L.42” on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels, said that the Conference on Disarmament had a vocation for negotiating international instruments.  There was no need for it to engage itself in formulating principles that had already been addressed.  The concerns of States extended beyond narrowly defined regions, and with that in mind, his delegation opposed the resolution.

The representative of Venezuela , in explanation of vote, said that the country had voted in favour of resolution “L.42” because it believed in total disarmament in a balanced way.  The draft resolution should not be used to undermine the rights of States to determine, in a free and sovereign fashion, their own security.  Weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, continued to pose the greatest threat to international peace and security.

ANNEX I

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 6/Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in Middle East

Preambular paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/62/L.2) was retained by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 3 against, with 6 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, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, 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, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Pakistan, Uganda.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in Middle East

The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/62/L.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 3 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, 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, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, India.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX III

Vote on United Nations Conference to Eliminate Nuclear Dangers

The draft resolution on a United Nations conference to eliminate nuclear dangers (document A/C.1/62/L.6) was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 3 against, with 44 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Uganda.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 6/Follow-Up to 1995, 2000 NPT Review Conferences

Preambular paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on follow-up to the 1995, 2000 Review Conferences of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.8) was retained by a recorded vote of 102 in favour to 48 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Russian Federation, Samoa.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Follow-Up to 1995, 2000 NPT Review Conferences

The draft resolution on follow-up to the 1995, 2000 Review Conferences on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.8) was approved by a recorded vote of 103 in favour to 53 against, with 15 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Azerbaijan, Burundi, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Missiles

The draft resolution on missiles (document A/C.1/62/L.20) was approved by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 6 against, with 51 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, 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, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Denmark, France, Israel, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.

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

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Reducing Nuclear Danger

The draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/62/L.21) was approved by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 50 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, 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, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Eritrea, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Convention on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on a convention banning the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.23) was approved by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 50 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, 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, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Renewed Determination towards Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.30) was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 3 against, with 10 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, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, 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, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, 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, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, 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, India, United States.

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

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX X

Vote on Follow-Up to International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Use of Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.36) was approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 25 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, 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, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament

The draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/62/L.40) was approved by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 45 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, 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, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, India, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malta, Mauritius, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Negative Security Assurances

The draft resolution on effective arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.44) was approved by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 1 against, with 54 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, 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, Gabon, Gambia, 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, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, 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:  United States.

Abstain:  Albania, 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, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

ANNEX XIII

Vote on Outer Space Arms Race

The draft resolution on prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/62/L.34) was approved by a recorded vote of 170 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, 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, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Israel.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda.

ANNEX XIV

Vote on Conventional Arms Control at Regional/Subregional Levels

The draft resolution on conventional arms control at regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/62/L.42) was approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, 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, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India.

Abstain:  Bhutan.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Viet Nam.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record