Sixty-third General Assembly

First Committee

21^st Meeting (PM)

FAILURE TO COMBAT ILLICIT ARMS BROKERING WOULD PROLONG CONFLICTS, EASE ACCESS

BY NON-STATE ACTORS TO MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS, SAYS FIRST COMMITTEE TEXT

New Text on Cluster Munitions among 12 Approved Today; Others on Information

Security, Conventional Arms Register, Security Assurances for Non-Nuclear States

Unless proper measures were taken, illicit arms brokering would not only threaten international peace and security, prolong conflicts and impede sustainable economic and social development, but would promote arms transfers that might put mass destruction weapons into the hands of non-State actors, according to a new draft text that was among 12 approved today by the Disarmament Committee.

Underlining the commitment of Member States to address the threat posed by illicit brokering activities, the General Assembly would recognize the need for States to prevent and combat these activities, which covers not only conventional arms but also materials, equipment and technology that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

Approved without a vote, that draft would also have the Assembly call upon Member States to establish appropriate national laws and measures to prevent and combat such brokering that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

Seeking an international consensus on ridding the world of cluster munitions, another new draft text, approved without a vote, would have the General Assembly note that the new Convention on Cluster Munitions would be open for signature at Oslo in December.

Several speakers said they had joined consensus out of respect for agreements to enhance international humanitarian law and to reduce suffering during and after conflicts.  But some took the floor to explain that, while they understood why countries refrained from using cluster munitions in military operations, the military and political environment might not permit all States to make that decision.  Still, other delegations held that “extra-UN” mechanisms should not supplant the “Convention on Conventional Weapons” process for discussing such weapons. 

According to still another draft resolution in the conventional weapons sphere that focused on the contribution of transparency to confidence-building and security, the Assembly would continue to view the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms as an important step forward in promoting transparency in military matters.  It was approved by a vote of 144 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions.  (For details of the vote, see Annex XII.)

Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, six separate recorded votes were taken on provisions in the operative portion of the text.  The Committee first voted to retain operative paragraph 2, which concerns recommendations made by the United Nations Secretary-General with a view to achieving the Register’s universal participation by 143 in favour to none against, with 20 abstentions (Annex VI). 

It next voted to retain operative paragraph 3, which concerns reporting on military procurement, by 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex VII).  It decided to retain operative paragraph 4, which concerns States providing information on transfers of small arms and light weapons, by a vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex VIII).

On operative paragraph 5b, concerning the preparation of a report by a group of governmental experts in 2009, the Committee retained that provision by a vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex IX).  It approved operative paragraph 5 as a whole by 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex X).  It also voted to retain operative paragraph 7, which reads that the Assembly “invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments”, by 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex XI).

Speaking after the vote on behalf of the Arab Group, the representative of Lebanon said that the value of the Register as a confidence-building machinery was not in question, however, it was necessary to widen its scope, as the instrument was limited to only seven types of conventional weapons.  The Arab League had abstained from voting because of such oversights and the failure of the Register to include weapons of mass destruction and military stockpiles.

He said the Register should include advanced weapons and advanced technology with military applications, and pointed out that the Register did not take into account the situation in the Middle East, where Israel possessed the most lethal weapons of mass destruction, including one that was not included in the Register.

Another traditional draft resolution, on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures, also took a separate vote before approving the text as a whole.  It voted to retain the words “the Third” in the tenth preambular paragraph -- referring to the Third Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Aspects -- by 159 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Côte d’Ivoire, Iran) (Annex I).  It approved the draft as a whole by a vote of 164 in favour to none against, with no abstentions (Annex II). 

Turning to other pressing international security matters, the Assembly would call upon Member States to promote further the consideration of existing and potential threats in the field of information security, according to a draft text approved by a vote of 167 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (Annex V).

The Committee also approved a draft text on compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitations and disarmament agreements and commitments, by a vote of 142 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions (Annex IV).

A draft text on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was also approved, by a vote of 110 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 55 abstentions (Annex III).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved draft resolutions on:  the United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education; United Nations Disarmament Information Programme; Preventing and Combating Illicit Brokering Activities; Convention on Cluster Munitions; and the United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa.

The Committee also approved, by consensus, a draft decision on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament.

Explanations of vote were made by the representatives of the Russian Federation, Pakistan, Iran, South Africa, Cuba, France (on behalf of the European Union), Egypt, India, Indonesia, Lebanon, Syria, Brazil, Israel, Singapore, China, Belarus, Morocco, Nigeria, Republic of Korea and the United States.

General statements were made by the representatives of Morocco, Turkey, Cuba and the Republic of Korea.

Pakistan’s representative introduced the draft resolution on negative security assurances.

The delegate from Lithuania spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Friday, 31 October, to continue taking action on all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue to take action on all draft texts submitted under disarmament and international security agenda items.

General Statements

Regarding draft resolution “L.9”, on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels, which the Committee had approved yesterday, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that his delegation had voted in favour of the draft, but now wanted to abstain because he had problems with the preamble.

The representative of Morocco drew attention to the second anniversary of the entry into force of the Global Initiative to Combat Terrorism, launched by the United States and the Russian Federation on 15 July 2006.  Speaking in a joint statement on behalf of the co-chairs and the 73 partner nations, he said that since its adoption in Morocco on 30 October 2006, the Initiative’s Statement of Principles had demonstrated its relevance in addressing the risks of a catastrophic terrorist attack and helping to remedy the actual gaps in the international proliferation regime, through building and improving capacities to prevent the acquisition, transport or use by terrorists of nuclear materials and radioactive substances or improvised explosive devices using such materials, as well as hostile actions against nuclear facilities.

He said that the partner nations stressed the relevance of the Global Initiative in that context and drew the attention of the international community to the responsibility of every State to each of its citizens, to identify clearly the concrete steps which could be taken, respectively and together, to prevent nuclear terrorism and ensure peace and security.

The partner nations were committed to, among other things, addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism to international peace and security, on a voluntary, yet determined and systematic basis, consistent with national legal authorities and their obligations under international legal frameworks.  Much more work needed to be done, and he urged partner nations to continue outreach efforts to further expand participation.

Next, the representative of Montenegro said that his delegation had meant to vote against “L.14” yesterday on nuclear disarmament, and he asked that the correction be made to the record.

The representative of the Dominica said his delegation had missed the voting on drafts “L.12”, on prohibiting the manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction, and on “L.l4, and would have voted “yes” on both.

Addressing the joint statement made by Morocco on the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the representative of Turkey said the success of the Initiative depended upon, among other things, the existence of a clearly defined, consensus-based decision-making procedure, which had been agreed at the first meeting in Rabat.  That was particularly important in the context of the participation of new partners in the Initiative.

Unfortunately, in the course of events, that agreement had been breached, which inevitably affected Turkey’s approach towards the Initiative, he added.  Nevertheless, the aims of the Initiative remained highly relevant for Turkey.  It was with that understanding that Turkey supported the joint statement.

Action on Draft Resolutions, Decisions

The Committee then took up a draft decision on the Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/63/L.33), which would have the General Assembly include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-fourth session an item by the same name.

The draft decision was approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/63/L.36).

By its terms, the Assembly, convinced that a comprehensive and integrated approach towards certain practical disarmament measures often is a prerequisite to maintaining and consolidating peace and security and thus provides a basis for effective post-conflict peacebuilding, would emphasize the importance of including in United Nations-mandated peacekeeping missions, as appropriate and with the consent of the host State, practical disarmament measures aimed at addressing the problem of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in conjunction with disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes aimed at former combatants, with a view to promoting an integrated comprehensive and effective weapons management strategy that would contribute to a sustainable peacebuilding process.

A recorded vote was requested on the words “and Third” in preambular paragraph 10, which welcomes the reports of the “First, Second and Third Biennial Meetings of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects…”.

The Committee voted to retain those words by 159 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions ( Côte d’Ivoire, Iran).  (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

Next, the Committee voted on the draft resolution as a whole, approving it by 164 to none against, with no abstentions (Annex II).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution entitled United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education (document A/C.1/63/L.52), by which the Assembly, conscious of the need to combat the negative effects of cultures of violence and complacency in the face of current dangers in this field through long-term programmes of education and training, would express its appreciation to the Member States, the United Nations and other international and regional organization, civil society and non-governmental organizations that implemented the recommendations made in the United Nations study (document A/57/124).

The Assembly would request the Secretary-General to prepare a report reviewing the results of the implementation and possible new opportunities for promoting disarmament and non-proliferation education, and to submit it at the sixty-fifth session.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The representative of Bolivia said her vote in favour of draft resolution “L.36” had not been recorded.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme (document A/C.1/63/L.53), which would have the Assembly welcome the launch of the new United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs website and invite Member States and other users to make use of its expanded content and specialization.  It would also stress the importance of the Programme as a significant instrument in enabling all Member States to participate fully in the deliberations and negotiations on disarmament in the various United Nations bodies, in assisting them in complying with treaties as required and in contributing to agreed mechanisms for transparency.  It would also commend with satisfaction the launch of the United Nations Disarmament Yearbook for 2007, with a new format and content, as well as its online edition by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, among other things.

That draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The representative of India said that the draft decision “L.33” was not open for co-sponsorship and asked that the Secretariat take note of the situation.

On a point of order, the representative of the Sudan said that his delegation’s vote in favour of “L.33” had not been reflected in the record.

The Chair asked Committee members to raise any issues regarding technical difficulties with voting at the end of every cluster voting process.

In an explanation of the vote after the vote, the representative of Pakistan said the reference in preambular paragraph 3 of draft resolution “L.36” might be too broad in scope, as the focus should be on strengthening mechanisms, rather than on creating new ones.

The representative of Iran said that the comments he had made previously in regard to paragraph 4 of draft resolution “L.57” could also be applied to certain words included in the preamble paragraph of draft resolution “L.36”, which welcomed the report of the Third Biennial Meetings of States.

Referring to the same paragraph of “L.36”, the delegate from C ôte d’Ivoire said his delegation had wanted to vote in favour of retaining that paragraph, and had not meant to abstain.  The Secretariat took note of that correction.

Introduction of Draft Resolution

Introducing the draft resolution on negative security assurances (document A/C.1/63/L.7), the representative of Pakistan noted that the demand for security assurances was raised by non-nuclear States in the 1960s and crystallized in 1968 during the final phase of the negotiations on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  The response of the nuclear-weapon States reflected in resolution 255 (1968) of the Security Council, however, was not adequate.  At the first special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, it was agreed to conclude an international instrument to provide binding and credible security assurances to the non-nuclear-weapon States.  Unfortunately, the declarations made by four of the five nuclear-weapon States at that session, and later at the NPT Review and Extension Conference and reflected in Security Council resolution 984 (1995), were also considered insufficient, qualified and partial by most of the non-nuclear-weapon States.

He said that several factors had militated against the fulfilment of the expectation that the end of the cold war would have made it easier for nuclear-weapon States to extend negative security assurances to the non-nuclear-weapon States.  There were several reasons that security assurances should be given in the form of a legal instrument.  Among those was the principle of non-use of force or threat thereof, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, extended to nuclear weapons.  In that context, the right to self-defence was not unfettered.

Positive and negative security assurances given so far, being conditional and non-binding, essentially amounted to political declarations, he said.  Even States in nuclear-weapon-free zones did not have any ironclad guarantees.  The indefinite extension of the NPT had created the presumption among nuclear-weapon States that they had the right to retain nuclear weapons, while complete nuclear disarmament under article VI of the NPT remained open-ended and non-negotiable.

He said such factors lent great urgency to the task of concluding credible negative security assurances to the non-nuclear-weapon States.  The co-sponsors of draft resolution “L.7” sought to underline that sense of urgency and translate it into concrete action.  The co-sponsors believed that the conclusion of effective arrangements on negative security assurances could constitute a major confidence-building measure in the current tense international circumstances between the nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon States, as well as among the nuclear-weapon States.  It could also contribute to reducing nuclear danger and ease the threats which arose from new doctrines of nuclear use, and facilitate the negotiations on other matters relating to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Action on Draft Resolutions, Decisions

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/63/L.7).

That draft text would have the Assembly, convinced that nuclear disarmament and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons are essential to remove the danger of nuclear war, 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.  It would appeal to all States to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character.

The Assembly would, among other things, recommend that further intensive efforts be devoted to the search for such a common approach and recommend that the Conference on Disarmament actively continue negotiations with a view to reaching an early agreement.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 110 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 55 abstentions (Annex III).

The representative of South Africa, explaining his delegation’s abstention on “L.7”, said that the issue of security assurances remained of great importance to South Africa.  Genuine security meant that no State would feel threatened by nuclear weapons.  Efforts towards a universal and legally binding instrument on security assurances should continue and should include provisions for non-nuclear weapon States.  However, the draft resolution currently before the Committee did not reflect the need to provide security assistance to States that had forsworn the nuclear weapons option under the NPT.  Including negative security assurances under a strengthened NPT umbrella and review process could serve as an incentive to those countries that still remained outside the Treaty.

General Statements

The representative of Cuba, making a general statement on cluster 6 draft texts on other disarmament measures and international security, said his delegation shared the concerns expressed in draft resolution “L.45”, concerning developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security, and its emphasis on the need to prevent the use of information resources and technologies for harmful purposes or terrorist acts.

In that context, he said he felt obliged to denounce the television and radio aggression that the Government of the United States had waged against Cuba for many years.  In recent years, that aggression had constituted more that 1,300 hours of radio programming on various radio services and frequencies.  That “radio terrorism” was illegal, went against radio communication regulations, and incited persons to conduct terrorist attacks against Cuba.  As such, his delegation was co-sponsoring that draft resolution.

Also making a general statement on cluster 6, the representative of the Republic of Korea, said that draft resolution “L.43”, on preventing and combating illicit brokering activities, which was co-sponsored by 61 States, focused on illicit brokering activities and the threat they posed to international peace and security.  The text called on all Member States to establish appropriate national laws to combat and prevent illicit brokering activities, while ensuring that such actions did not hamper legitimate arms trading or the trade in equipment and technologies for peaceful purposes.  The two co-authors had engaged in an extensive consultation process, and he expressed his delegation’s hope that the draft text would be adopted by consensus.

Action on Draft Resolutions, Decisions

Regarding “L.43”, the representative of the Russian Federation said he found the draft amusing.  He said his delegation had no fundamental objections to combating illicit brokering in the area of small arms and light weapons, “but they mixed the two understandings here”.  However, recognizing the importance of the issue, he did not wish to speak against it and, for that reason, he would not take part in the voting.

Turning to “L.32/Rev.1”, the representative of Cuba said that consensus on the item in that resolution had been broken in 2005.  The main weakness of the text was its selective approach in it, which moved further and further from encouraging cooperation among States.  He believed that the unilateral steps of compliance and the bid to use instruments like the resolution for political purposes undermined it.  It was unfortunate that the need to guarantee verification with the disarmament agreement was eliminated from the draft.  The draft ignored the basic principle of the need for all States to comply fully with agreements in respect to disarmament and other matters.  The draft also opened itself to subjective interpretation.  The draft also ignored, among other things, that every treaty had specific modalities to determine non-compliance.  It was counterproductive to look at all cases from a single point of view.  As a result, Cuba would abstain from the vote.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union on “L.45”, noted that the Union countries would vote in favour of it and he highlighted the relationship between security and telecommunications technologies.  He supported the basic principle of the resolution.  The Union was concerned that those technologies could be misused and adversely affect the security of States.  There was a threat to cyber-security.  He noted regional and global initiatives to address the subject, such as the Global Cyber-Security Agenda and efforts to develop it.  Among other things, he called for the establishment of a group of governmental experts in 2009 to address such issues as strengthening cyber-security infrastructure and cooperation between Governments.

On “L.32/Rev.1”, the representative of Iran said that subjective and unilateral assessment of non-compliance would only undermine disarmament efforts.  Speaking on the merits of the text, he was satisfied to see the concept obligations clearly included the obligations agreed within the context of the NPT Review Conferences.  That reference underscored that compliance with those obligations were as fundamental and essential as the obligations enshrined in legal instruments.  Moreover, referring to the concept of compliance as a contribution to the efforts in preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction was another element in the present draft -– as it urged those States not currently in compliance with their respective obligations under article VI of NPT to come back into compliance.  The continuous failure by some nuclear-weapon States to comply with their obligations under the NPT Review Conferences undermined the viability and effectiveness of and confidence in the Treaty. 

However, he said, in his view, the draft continued to suffer from basic substantive shortcomings.  Among those, while nuclear disarmament was the highest priority of the international community, the text failed to accord priority to nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments.  Additionally, the central role of the international organizations for disarmament and non-proliferation was overlooked, and cooperation of States parties in resolving non-compliance had also been ignored.  The draft lacked precision and clarity.  For those and other reasons, his delegation had opted to abstain from the vote.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments (document A/C.1/63/L.32/Rev.1).

Recognizing the importance of and support for effective national, regional, and international capacities for such verification, compliance and enforcement, the Assembly would, by the draft’s terms, underscore the contribution that compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and other agreed obligations make to enhancing confidence and strengthening international capacity.

Also by the draft text, the Assembly would urge States to implement and comply fully with their obligations and call upon all Member States to encourage, and for those States in a position to do so, to appropriately assist States which request assistance to increase their capacity to implement fully their obligations.  It would also urge those States not currently in compliance with their respective obligations and commitments to make the strategic decision to come back into compliance.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 142 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions (Annex IV).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Preventing and Combating Illicit Brokering Activities (document A/C.1/63/L.43).

Under this new draft text, the Assembly would recognize the need for Member States to prevent and combat illicit brokering activities, which covers not only conventional arms but also materials, equipment and technology that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

The Assembly would also be concerned that if proper measures were not taken, illicit brokering of arms in all its aspects would adversely affect the maintenance of international peace and security and prolong of conflicts, thereby impeding sustainable economic and social development, and result in the illicit transfers of conventional arms and the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors.  It would underline the commitment of Member States to address the threat posed by illicit brokering activities.

Also by the draft, the Assembly would encourage Member States to fully implement relevant international treaties, instruments, and resolutions to prevent and combat illicit brokering activities and call upon Member States to establish appropriate national laws and/or measures to prevent and combat illicit brokering of conventional arms, and materials, equipment and technology that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery in a manner consistent with international law.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/C.1/63/L.45), by which the Assembly would call upon Member States to promote further at multilateral levels the consideration of existing and potential threats in the field of information security, as well as possible measures to limit the threats emerging in this field.

The draft resolution was approved, as orally amended, by a vote of 167 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (Annex V).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/63/L.51), which would have the Assembly reaffirm its determination to ensure the effective operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.  It would call on Member States to provide the Secretary-General, by 31 May annually, with the requested data and information for the Register, including nil reports if appropriate.  It would invite Member States in a position to do so, pending the Register’s further development, to provide additional information on procurement through national production and military holdings and to make use of the “Remarks” column in the standardized reporting form to provide additional information such as types or models.

The Assembly would reaffirm its decision, with a view to the Register’s further development, to keep the scope of and participation in the Register under review and, to that end:  recall its request to Member States to provide the Secretary-General with their views on the Register’s continuing development and on transparency measures related to weapons of mass destruction; and request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a governmental expert group to be convened in 2009, within available resources, to prepare a report on the Register’s continuing operation and further development.

First, the Committee voted on operative paragraph 2, by which the Assembly “calls upon Member States, with a view to achieving universal participation, to provide the Secretary-General, by 31 May annually, with the requested data and information for the Register, including nil reports if appropriate, on the basis of resolutions 46/36 L and 47/52 L, the recommendations contained in paragraph 64 of the 1997 report of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, the recommendations contained in paragraph 94 of the 2000 report of the Secretary-General and the appendices and annexes thereto, the recommendations contained in paragraphs 112 to 114 of the 2003 report of the Secretary-General, and the recommendations contained in paragraphs 123 to 127 of the 2006 report of the Secretary-General”.

It voted to retain the second operative paragraph by 143 in favour to none against, with 20 abstentions (Annex VI).

The Committee then voted on operative paragraph 3, which reads that the Assembly “invites Member States in a position to do so, pending further development of the Register, to provide additional information on procurement through national production and military holdings and to make use of the “Remarks” column in the standardized reporting form to provide additional information such as types or models”.

It approved that paragraph by a vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex VII).

It then voted on operative paragraph 4, which reads that the Assembly “also invites Member States in a position to do so to provide additional background information on transfers of small arms and light weapons on the basis of the optional standardized reporting form, as adopted by the 2006 group of governmental experts, or by any other methods they deem appropriate”.

It voted to retain the fourth operative paragraph by 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex VIII).

The Committee then voted on operative paragraph 5b, which reads that the Assembly “requests the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2009, within available resources, on the basis of equitable geographical representation, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, taking into account the work of the Conference on Disarmament, the views expressed by Member States, and the reports of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to taking a decision at its sixty-fourth session”.

It voted to retain paragraph 5b by a vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex IX).

Then the Committee voted on operative paragraph 5 as a whole, voting to retain that paragraph by 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex X).

The Committee then voted on operative paragraph 7, which reads that the Assembly “invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments”.

It voted to retain the seventh operative paragraph by 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex XI).

The Committee then voted on draft resolution 51 as a whole, approving it by a vote of 144 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (Annex XII).

Explaining his position on “L.32/Rev.1”, the representative of Egypt said that, owing to a number of conceptual inaccuracies, Egypt had abstained in the vote.  In addition, some of the commitments referred to in that draft were not clearly described or defined, and the text did not acknowledge that no State could enforce the compliance of another, outside of the United Nations or other relevant agreements.  Also preamble paragraph 8 did not make it clear whether the reference to support for effective national capacities for verification and enforcement related only to support by international organizations created by relevant treaties, or to individual States.

The representative of India, explaining his support for “L.32/Rev.1”, said it flowed from his belief in the responsibility of States to fully comply with their obligations under the agreements to which they were party.  States encouraging compliance should ensure that such compliance was in accordance with the compliance mechanisms provided for in the relevant agreements and in line with the United Nations Charter and international law.  His delegation recognized the significance of multilateralism in resolving issues or problems that might arise.

Speaking to the same draft, “L.32/Rev.1”, the delegate from the Russian Federation expressed his delegation’s regret that the current text preserved the thrust of a similar document from two years ago.  The changes that had been introduced in the new text had not altered the substance of the document and, as such, the Russian Federation had abstained.  The draft resolution seemed limited to punishing any non-respect of treaties, and there was almost no mention of multilateral obligations in enhancing security.  In addition, there was some discrepancy in regard to appeals to enhancing capacity and assistance to States.  Finally, the draft did not mention the implementation of legally binding verification mechanisms in multilateral treaties based on objective criteria.  Thus, he encouraged the co-sponsors to conduct the necessary consultations to allow the resolution to achieve the broadest possible support in the future.

The representative of Cuba, speaking about “L.43”, said the draft had taken into account the proposals made by his delegation during consultations.  Much of the wording of the text had been improved and was now more specific and precise, and he expressed his delegation’s hope that the draft would be perfected over the coming years.  For the record, he drew attention to preambular paragraph 2 and its rather simplistic approach to the causes and effects of illicit brokering.  As well, his delegation’s understanding of operative paragraph 2 was that it referred only to the application by States to treaties and instruments to which those States were party, and could not be interpreted as granting legitimacy to instruments that, in Cuba’s opinion, were not fully compatible with the United Nations Charter or international law.  Finally, initiatives to prevent and combat illicit brokering activities should not hinder international cooperation with respect to materials, equipment and technology used for peaceful purposes.

On “L.32/Rev.1”, the representative of Indonesia acknowledged the importance of compliance and how non-compliance might affect the security of States parties and create security risks for other States.  As well, without compliance to the relevant agreements, the treaty regime could be weakened and could become ineffective.  However, some amendments were still needed to the draft text, and compliance with nuclear disarmament measures and non-proliferation should be addressed in a balanced manner, as they deserved equal attention.

Turning to “L.43”, he said he had appreciated the consultation process and the “step-by-step” approach of the authors of the text.  He echoed statements made by other delegates regarding the need to ensure that the actions on illicit brokering should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade.  Undue restrictions on the trade of equipment and technologies for peaceful purposes were of particular concern to Indonesia.

The representative of Lebanon, speaking on “L.51” on behalf of the Arab Group, said that many members of the Arab League had expressed their views concerning transparency in the field of armaments and their commitment to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.  Such transparency enhanced international peace and security, and the Register was the first attempt by the international community to deal with the issue at the international level.  The value of the Register as a confidence-building machinery was not in question; however, it was necessary to widen its scope, as it was limited to only seven types of conventional weapons.

He said that the resolution adopted by the General Assembly that established the Register should be widened to make it more comprehensive, in particular, to include advanced weapons and advanced technology with military applications.  For example, the Register did not take into account the situation in the Middle East, where Israel possessed the most lethal weapons of mass destruction, including one that was not included in the Register.  The Arab League had abstained from voting because of such oversights and the failure of the Register to include weapons of mass destruction and military stockpiles.

The representative of Syria said his delegation abstained from voting on “L.32/Rev.1” because it called for the respect of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament treaties, yet, Israel, a co-sponsor, refused to accede to the NPT and threatened security in the Middle East.  The situation undermined the credibility of the draft.  He pointed to paragraph 4 of the resolution, which called for respect for non-proliferation and disarmament treaties by all Member States.  He noted that those treaties also included the NPT.  The draft also did not mention the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the Conference of Disarmament.  He said the efforts of the United Nations, the IAEA and the Conference of Disarmament should be coordinated.

On “L.51”, he expressed Syria’s full support for the global trend towards a Register based on the ideals of the United Nations Charter.  He would participate in international efforts in that area in good will.  He said, however, that the draft resolution did not take into account the special situation that existed in the Middle East.  The Arab-Israeli conflict persisted.  Israel had the most “high-tech” conventional weapons.  It also had the capacity to deliver other weapons, including nuclear weapons.  He abstained in the vote.

Speaking on “L.43”, the representative of Brazil said he joined the consensus on the resolution because he fully supported an end to illicit brokering, especially in regard to small arms and light weapons.  He remained committed to the objectives of Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) and to the international community’s efforts to prevent terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction.

He said, however, that the third preambular paragraph sought to consolidate the definition that illicit brokering activities encompassed, not only conventional weapons, but also “materials, equipment and technology that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery”.  And in the third operative paragraph, the text proposed that Member States deal with the issue through the establishment of “appropriate national laws and/or measures”.  That approach created some difficulty for his delegation.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and illicit brokering of conventional arms were fundamentally distinct phenomena, he said.  There was a legal role for conventional arms, whereas there was none for weapons of mass destruction.  His delegation remained unconvinced of the usefulness of the concept outlined in the third preambular paragraph.  Brazil supported the establishment of a legally binding instrument to address the illicit brokering of small arms and light weapons.

The representative of Iran said he had decided to abstain on “L.51”, in keeping with his principled position in recent years of advocating a more comprehensive approach towards transparency in armaments.  His country had repeatedly announced that transparency in conventional arms without transparency in weapons of mass destruction was imbalanced and lacked comprehensiveness, particularly in the sensitive region in the Middle East, where the only non-party to the NPT continued to develop nuclear and other kinds of weapons of mass destruction.  The resolution 46/36 L, as the basis of the whole initiative and main terms of reference for the subject, had not been fully and faithfully implemented.  After more than a decade of the operation of the United Nations Register, he only recalled a reference to that resolution in the current draft, while it was supposed that the United Nations Register would be a first step towards initiating such transparency in all kinds of armaments, including weapons of mass destruction, and, in particular, nuclear weapons.

The representative of Iraq pointed out her vote on operative paragraph 2 of “L.51”; it was incorrectly recorded that she voted “yes”, when she had abstained.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution sponsored by Ireland on the Convention on Cluster Munitions (document A/C.1/63/L.56), which would have the Assembly, recalling the conclusion of negotiations at Dublin on 30 May on the Convention, request the Secretary-General to render the necessary assistance and to provide such services as may be necessary to fulfil the tasks entrusted to him by the Convention.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

After the vote, the representative of Israel explained her position, saying she welcomed negotiations within the Convention that addressed cluster munitions.  Discussions had been fruitful, evidenced by the forthcoming production of a text by year’s end.  The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons had aimed to reach a balance between military and humanitarian aspects.  However, she had yet to be convinced for the need to discuss cluster munitions in other forums.  Initiatives occurring outside the United Nations threatened to affect existing ones.

Singapore’s speaker said she had voted for “L.56”, but added that humanitarian concerns must be balanced with a State’s right to self-defence.

The representative of India said his country had not taken part in the Dublin Conference and, therefore, consideration of “L.56” by this Committee could not be construed as an endorsement of the Conference’s outcome.  India supported further consideration of the issue as a part of the “CCW” (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) process, in accordance with its mandate on striking a balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he did not object to “L.56” out of respect for agreements by States to enhance international humanitarian law and to reduce suffering during and after conflicts, and it understood why other countries refrained from using cluster munitions in military operations.  However, the military and political environment did not permit all States to make such decisions.  Attempts to define “smart” and “unintelligent” weapons were unjustified.  Furthermore, resolving the problem of cluster munitions should be done through existing mechanisms.

Egypt’s speaker joined consensus on “L.56”, but he wanted to place on record that doing so did not mean it supported the entire substance of that Convention.

Speaking to draft resolution “L.56”, the delegate from the Republic of Korea said his Government shared the concerns of the international community regarding the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions.  However, he stressed the importance of negotiations in the context of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), since such negotiations could bring about the international instrument that would most effectively address the issue.  As such, his Government would continue to engage in those discussions, moving forward.

The representative of China, also on “L.56”, said that China’s decision to join the consensus on the draft resolution did not mean that China recognized the Dublin Convention (Convention on Cluster Munitions), and indeed, China had not participated in the Dublin Convention negotiations.  China supported efforts that took place within the United Nations framework and the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.  At the same time, continued efforts should be made to reduce the humanitarian effects of cluster munitions.

The representative of Pakistan, also speaking on “L.56”, said that his delegation had joined the consensus because of the procedural nature of the text.  However, Pakistan remained convinced that the Dublin Convention, though useful, was still an “extra-UN” mechanism and that the process should supplement, and not supplant, the “CCW” (Conventional on Certain Conventional Weapons) process.

Also speaking on “L.56”, the representative of Belarus said that the humanitarian effects of cluster munitions were of great concern.  The development of new international instruments should take place on a step-by-step basis and in an open manner.  As such, he stressed that the most acceptable forum for agreement on that issue continued to be the Conference on Disarmament.

The representative of Morocco said his delegation had joined the consensus on “L.56” mainly because of its procedural nature, among other reasons.  The Convention on Cluster Munitions needed to be looked into further in order to come up with an instrument that would balance the humanitarian aspects of the issue with military concerns.  He added that joining the consensus did not “pre-judge” Morocco’s national position, which remained something to be defined by competent national authorities.

The representative of Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, thanked Members States for their assistance in connection with “L.50/Rev.1*”, on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa.  All the technical amendments had been brought to bear.  He urged the members to adopt the resolution by consensus.  That was the time that Africa needed all the assistance that it could get, he said.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said that education was a way of passing the good ideals of cooperation and assistance to the next generation.  And the United Nations Disarmament Fellowship Programme supported those ideals, he added.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services (document A/C.1/63/L.49), which would have the Assembly, noting that the programme had trained a large number of officials from Member States through its thirty years of existence, express its appreciation of the Member States, international agencies and the United Nations Secretary-General for their contributions to the programme.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/63/L.50/Rev.1).

The draft text would have the Assembly express deep concern that, as noted in the report of the Secretary-General, despite the decision taken in Khartoum in January 2006 by the Executive Council of the African Union, in which the Council called upon Member States to make voluntary contributions to the Regional Centre to maintain its operations, no such funds have been received to ensure its operations.  Under the text, the Assembly would urge all States, as well as international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to strengthen the programmes and activities of the Regional Centre and facilitate their implementation.

It would also urge, in particular, States members of the African Union to make voluntary contributions to the Regional Centre’s trust funds in conformity with the decision taken by the Executive Council of the African Union, in Khartoum in January 2006, and would request the Secretary-General to continue to provide the necessary support to the Regional Centre for better achievements and results.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

Speaking on “L.50” after the vote, the United States’ speaker said he believed the United Nations regional centres could facilitate work on peace and security.  However, last year, the United States had been opposed to include funding for three new posts in the African Centre and his position remained unchanged that those centres should be funded voluntarily.

Right of Reply

Lithuania’s speaker spoke in exercise of his right of reply concerning the Biennial Meeting of States held in July.  He said that 740,000 people were killed each year with weapons, 85 each hour.  If the final outcome of the Biennial Meeting of States set off tangible action that saved lives, he and many others felt proud of the results and owed it to the thousands of individuals of every country represented here.

He said it was unfortunate that someone might choose to overlook that sacrifice and commitment and find it convenient to blame it on the procedures.  It was disingenuous for such a distinguished delegation to claim that the leadership of the Biennial Meeting of States had failed.  It was the opposite.  The whole United Nations membership did not fail to achieve a general agreement on substantive matters in the most dynamic and inclusive way.  The delegation which abstained during the vote of the Biennial Meeting of States in July had been among the delegations that had been consulted the most. Moreover, that delegation had proposed a host of amendments to the final documents.  Those had been accepted and still that delegation had chosen to vote against it.

ANNEX I

Vote on Consolidation of Peace through Practical Disarmament, Preambular Paragraph 10

The draft resolution, on Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/63/L.36), was approved by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Côte d’Ivoire, Iran.

Absent:  Botswana, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Consolidation of Peace through Practical Disarmament, As a Whole

The draft resolution, on Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/63/L.36), was approved by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to none against, with no abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  None.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Bolivia, Botswana, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Nepal, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Negative Security Assurances

The 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.1/63/L.7*), was approved by a recorded vote of 110 in favour to 1 against, with 55 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, 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, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, 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, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Compliance with Non-Proliferation, Arms Limitation, Disarmament Agreements, Commitments

The draft resolution, on Compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments (document A/C.1/63/L.32/Rev.1), was approved by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Nauru, Oman, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Information, Telecommunications Security

The draft resolution, on Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/C.1/63/L.45), was approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), 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, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, Operative Paragraph 2

The draft resolution, on Transparency in armaments, operative paragraph 2 (document A/C.1/63/L.51), was approved by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, Operative Paragraph 3

The draft resolution, on Transparency in armaments, operative paragraph 3 (document A/C.1/63/L.51), was approved by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, Operative Paragraph 4

The draft resolution, on Transparency in armaments, operative paragraph 4 (document A/C.1/63/L.51), was approved by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, Operative Paragraph 5b

The draft resolution, on Transparency in armaments, operative paragraph 5b (document A/C.1/63/L.51), was approved by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX X

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, Operative Paragraph 5 As a Whole

The draft resolution, on Transparency in armaments, operative paragraph 5 as a whole (document A/C.1/63/L.51), was approved by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, Operative Paragraph 7

The draft resolution, on Transparency in armaments, operative paragraph 7 (document A/C.1/63/L.51), was approved by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, As a Whole

The draft resolution, on Transparency in armaments, as a whole (document A/C.1/63/L.51), was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record