Sixty-fourth General Assembly

First Committee

19^th Meeting (PM)

Gravely Concerned at Danger of Possible Nuclear Weapons Use, First Committee Draft

Resolution Calls on States to Prevent Proliferation, Promote Nuclear Disarmament

Seeking to Remove Nuclear Weapons from High Alert, Review Nuclear Doctrines,

Halt Threat of Renewed Arms Race, Committee Sends 13 Texts to General Assembly

Removing nuclear weapons from a state of high-alert, halting the threat of a renewed nuclear arms race and cementing commitments and efforts to do both reflected the positive progress in the field of disarmament, according to one of 13 draft texts approved today by the Disarmament Committee, as it began taking action on the more than 50 draft resolutions and decisions before it.

By a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 50 against, with 15 abstentions, the Committee approved a draft resolution seized with a review of all nuclear doctrines and 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.  (For details, see Annex VI.)

By its terms, the draft resolution would have the General Assembly 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.

Reiterating its grave concern at the danger to humanity posed by the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used, the Assembly would call upon all States to comply fully with all commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and not to act in any way that might compromise either cause or that might lead to a new nuclear arms race, according to the draft resolution, entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments”.

The Committee recommended that draft resolution to the Assembly by a vote of 165 in favour to 5 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, United Kingdom).  (See Annex XIV.)

Prior to approving that draft, a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 4, which would have the Assembly reiterate its call upon all States parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to spare no effort to achieve the Treaty’s universality, and in that regard, urge India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States promptly and without conditions.

The Committee voted to retain that provision by 159 in favour to 4 against ( India, Israel, Pakistan, United States), with 2 abstentions ( Bhutan, France) (Annex XIII).

The process of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation went hand in hand, according to a draft resolution, entitled “Nuclear disarmament” (document A/C.1/64/L.48).  By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm there was a genuine need for a systematic and progressive process of nuclear disarmament, and it would urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.  It would also urge those States, as an interim measure, to 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 vote of 112 in favour to 43 against, with 21 abstentions.  (See Annex XII.)

Another traditional draft text, on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/64/L.4), was approved by a vote of 164 in favour to 5 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, India).  Among its key provisions, the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of Israel’s accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.  (See Annex III.)

A separate vote was held on preambular paragraph 6, which would have the Assembly call on those remaining States not parties to the NPT to accede to it and to accept IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities.

That paragraph was retained by a vote of 163 in favour to 4 against (India, Israel, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Pakistan) (Annex II).

The Committee also approved, by a vote of 168 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 5 abstentions (India, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Palau), a draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/64/L.31).  (See Annex XI.)

Prior to the text’s passage, a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 7, which calls upon all States to consider all relevant [nuclear-weapon-free zone] proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia.

The paragraph was retained by a vote of 165 in favour to 2 against (India, Pakistan), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Israel, Palau, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex X).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East, and on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty.

The Committee also approved, without a vote, a draft decision on preventing the acquisition by terrorists of radioactive materials and sources, and on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes.

The following additional resolutions were approved by recorded votes:  follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons; Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Bangkok Treaty); and the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

General statements on Cluster I or introductions of draft texts were made by the representatives of Cuba, Nigeria, Pakistan, Brazil, Egypt, Syria, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union) and New Zealand.

Explanations of vote were made by the representatives of Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group), Israel, Iran, Norway, Spain, France, Russian Federation, India, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Venezuela, Canada, Israel, Brazil and the United States.

Representatives of Cuba and Israel spoke on procedural matters.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Wednesday, 28 October, to continue to take action on all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to take action on all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under the disarmament and international security agenda items, beginning with its first cluster on nuclear weapons-related draft texts.

General Statements on Cluster 1/Introduction of Drafts

CAMILO GARCIA LOPEZ-TRIGO ( Cuba) said he supported and agreed to the procedures; however, he asked about the availability of the informal paper, as his delegation had not received the document.  He requested that it be given to his delegation in a timely fashion.

The CHAIR said that the informal paper had been distributed on Friday and posted online on Monday.

LAWRENCE OBISAKIN (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, introduced the draft resolution on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (Pelindaba Treaty) (document A/C.1/64/L.33).  The draft had been approved by consensus before, with no substantive amendments, and he hoped it would enjoy consensus once more.

He also introduced a draft text on prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/64/L.34), and likewise hoped the Committee would approve it by consensus.

ZAMIR AKRAM ( Pakistan) introduced 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.1/64/L.24).  He said that the demand for negative security assurances crystallized in 1968, but the response of the nuclear-weapon States had not been adequate.  At the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, it had been agreed that it was necessary to conclude binding agreements, but, unfortunately, the declaration by four of the five nuclear-weapon States was insufficient.

He said that there were several justifications for negative security assurances, including the fact that the principle of non-use of, or threat of use of, force was enshrined in the Charter.  Present statements not to use nuclear weapons were mere political declarations if not backed by a binding document.  Even nuclear-weapon-free zones did not have ironclad guarantees.  Only one nuclear-weapon State had given an ironclad guarantee.

Negative security assurances were unfinished business, which had to be completed, he said.  New security doctrines envisaging the use of nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attacks were not tenable.  The Non-Aligned Movement had expressed concern about new types and possible deployment of nuclear weapons.  The expansion of nuclear alliances had also increased the scope of use of nuclear weapons.  Those situations were inconsistent with negative security assurance pledges and weakened the concept, lending great urgency to the task of concluding those assurances.

He said that the co-sponsors of the draft resolution sought to underline that sense of urgency and to see it backed up by concrete action.  The resolution had been technically updated.  They appealed to all States, especially nuclear-weapon States, to work towards a common approach and formula on that matter.  They believed that the conclusion of effective arrangements would constitute a confidence-building measure and contribute to reducing nuclear danger.  The co-sponsors urged the draft’s approval by the widest possible majority.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden), introduced a draft resolution, entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments (document A/C.1/64/L.54).

He explained that the Coalition was a group of like-minded nations engaged in the nuclear disarmament agenda.  Their goal was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.  The resolution concentrated on nuclear disarmament.  Building upon the increasing interest expressed in disarmament by global leaders, the group engaged constructively in consultation with Member States, with a view to getting wide acceptance in the Committee this year.  They hoped that all delegations would be able to support the draft text and, as such, contribute and give concrete expression to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

KHALED ABDELRAHMANSHAMAA (Egypt), making a general statement on “L.3”, on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, said that the international consensus on the resolution adopted annually was a manifestation of the importance given to the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime in the Middle East region and globally.  In view of the current positive atmosphere, Egypt was determined to move forward on nuclear challenges in the region, particularly emanating from unsafeguarded nuclear activity there.  The draft had been technically updated to include factual references to resolutions adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding Agency safeguards in the region.  Egypt looked forward to continued and consensual adoption of the resolution, as well as collective action towards its implementation.

Mr. GARCIA LOPEZ-TRIGO ( Cuba ) said that his delegation had co-sponsored several draft resolutions, including L.18, L.20, L.24, L.31, L.48, and L.40.  It was unfortunate that those texts were adopted every year, but not implemented.

ABDULLAH HALLAK (Syria), speaking on the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/64/L.4), said that, at a time when nuclear weapons were being developed and stockpiles were being increased, when nuclear Powers had failed to fulfil the progress they had made at the Review Conferences of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1995 and 2000, there were pressures on States to acquire the means to secure their sovereignty under international laws and conventions.  A blind eye could not be cast on Israel, which possessed nuclear weapons.  Israel continued an aggressive arms programme on an assortment of weapons.

Hence, he said, the Middle East region remained the most exposed to those threats.  Syria had been among the first States to have called for the region to become free of weapons of mass destruction, under international supervision.  Yet, Israel had still not subjected its nuclear programme to IAEA safeguards.

MAGNUS HELLGREN ( Sweden), on behalf of the European Union, said, regarding a draft resolution on African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (document A/C.1/64/L.33), nuclear-weapon-free zones enhanced global peace and promoted stability and confidence.  He welcomed into force the Pelindaba Treaty, and congratulated all African States on that achievement.

RAYLENE LIUFALANI ( New Zealand) said, regarding the draft resolution on nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/64/L.31), a technical glitch reflecting a sponsors’ list was incomplete, and it should include a complete list of co-sponsors.

Action on Drafts

The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, on the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/64/L.4), said the Union intended to vote in favour of the text, but that did not imply its support of the preambular reference to IAEA resolution GC(53)/RES/17.  The draft before the Committee did not mention the serious proliferation risks related to Iran’s nuclear programmes.  The Union urged Iran to comply fully with United Nations Security Council resolutions.  A solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and to realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery.  Practical steps, including Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) ratification and the start of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, would be important confidence-building measures in the regional context.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea wanted to clarify its position on the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free world, accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments, L.54.  He was in favour of the main thrust of the text, however, the NPT was discriminatory in content and unfair in implementation.  The nuclear-weapon States were preaching the NPT, but denying developing countries’ right to developing nuclear-energy programmes.  The NPT was applied unfairly.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea signed onto the Treaty in 1985, with a hope of peaceful nuclear-energy development.  But his country’s expectations had not been met.  It was inconceivable to re-enter the NPT until its concerns were completely dispelled.  A number of countries called for a legally binding treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  He would, for those reasons, vote against the draft.

The representative of Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, said he believed there would be another revision to the draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/64/L.32/Rev.1).

The Secretariat said that the amendments arrived too late.

The representative of Israel said that the current situation on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East begged the question of whether the draft text on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, L.4, was realistic.

Proliferation existed in the Middle East, with four of five non-compliance cases overall taking place there, none involving Israel, he said.  That was an alarming situation.  The region also suffered from States sending weapons of mass destruction to it.

He said that Iran’s ongoing clandestine activities totally disregarded IAEA and Security Council resolutions, and Syria’s lack of cooperation with IAEA investigations were some examples.  The draft text did not include enough information, and it singled out the State of Israel and overlooked the poor track record of other States in the region.  Adopting such a resolution would not curb proliferation in the Middle East. and he urged other States not to support it.  In addition, the draft included references to a divisive IAEA resolution.  The fact that some States continued to support the Committee resolution was regrettable.

The representative of Iran, speaking on L.3, on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East, said that, as a result of Iran’s initiative, the General Assembly had recognized the need for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.  The activities of the Zionist regime were the major obstacle in achieving that goal.  The actions of certain nuclear-weapon States had actively hindered any progress in that respect.  The contradictory approach by certain European Union members had also sent the wrong message to the Zionist regime, even though those States were parties to the NPT.  The inaction imposed on the Security Council, with the support of the European Union members, had allowed the Zionist regime to explicitly acknowledge the unlawful possession of nuclear weapons.

The representative of Norway, speaking on L.4, on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, said that, while he would support the text, his country shared the European Union’s concerns about it.  Norway was in favour of the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

Nigeria’s representative stressed that the amendment he proposed had been presented to the Secretariat at 5:30 p.m.  The sponsors wanted the amendment in print, and not presented orally.

The Committee took up a draft resolution, on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East (document A/C.1/64/L.3), which would have the General Assembly urge all parties directly concerned to seriously consider taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of proposal to establish such a zone and invite concerned countries to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Under the draft, the Assembly 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 all countries of the region, pending the establishment of such a zone, not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit the stationing of such weapons or nuclear devices on their territories, or territories under their control.

The Assembly would also invite the nuclear-weapon States and all other States to assist in establishing the zone and to refrain from any action that ran counter to both the letter and the spirit of the present resolution.  The Assembly would also invite all parties to consider the appropriate means that might contribute to the goal of general and complete disarmament and the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in that region.

A separate vote was held for operative paragraph 3, which takes note of resolution GC(53)/RES/16, adopted on 17 September by the General Conference of the IAEA, concerning the application of Agency safeguards in the Middle East.

The Committee voted to retain that provision by 166 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions ( Côte d’Ivoire, India, Israel). (For details of the vote, please see Annex I.)

Next, the draft resolution was approved in its entirety without a vote.

The Committee then took action on the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/64/L.4), which would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of Israel’s accession to the NPT 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 its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.

A separate vote was held for preambular paragraph 6, which would have the Assembly called on those remaining States not parties to the NPT to accede to it and to accept IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities.

That paragraph was retained by a vote of 163 in favour to 4 against (India, Israel, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Pakistan) (Annex II).

The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a vote of 164 in favour to 5 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, India) (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.1/64/L.6).

By its terms, the Assembly, gravely concerned over the failure of the 2005 NPT Review Conference to reach any substantive agreement on the follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations, call for practical steps to be taken by all nuclear-weapon States that would lead to nuclear disarmament in a way that promotes international stability and based on the principle of undiminished security for all.  The draft would also have the Assembly urge States party to the Treaty to follow up on the implementation of the nuclear disarmament obligations under the Treaty agreed to at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences.

A separate vote was taken on preambular paragraph 6, by which the Assembly would reaffirm the resolution on the Middle East adopted on 11 May 1995 by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, 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 IAEA safeguards.

The paragraph was approved by a vote of 109 in favour to 48 against, with 10 abstentions (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, India, Peru, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, Serbia, Timor-Leste) (Annex IV).

The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a vote of 105 in favour to 56 against, with 12 abstentions (Annex V).

The Committee then took up a draft decision, on preventing the acquisition by terrorists of radioactive materials and sources (document A/C.1/64/L.17), which would have the Assembly decide to include an item of the same title in the provisional agenda for its sixty-fifth session.

The draft decision was approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution, on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/64/L.18), which would have the Assembly 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.

Also by the draft, the Assembly would call on 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.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 113 in favour to 50 against, with 15 abstentions (Annex VI).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution, on Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/64/L.20), approving it by a vote of 116 in favour to 50 against, with 11 abstentions (Annex VII).

The draft resolution would have the General Assembly, convinced that the use of nuclear weapons poses the most serious threat to the survival of mankind and stressing that an international convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons would be an important step in a phased programme towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame, reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations to reach an agreement on such a convention.

The Committee then had before it a draft resolution on the Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Bangkok Treaty) (document A/C.1/64/L.23), by which the Assembly would encourage States parties to resume direct consultations with the five nuclear-weapon States to resolve comprehensively existing outstanding issues on provisions of the Treaty and the Protocol thereto.  The Assembly would also encourage nuclear-weapon States and States parties to work constructively, with a view to ensuring the early accession of the nuclear-weapon States to the Treaty’s Protocol.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 172 in favour to 0 against, with 5 abstentions (France, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States) (Annex VIII).

The Committee then voted on 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.1/64/L.24), approving it by a vote of 119 in favour to none against, with 58 abstentions (Annex IX).

That draft would have the Assembly appeal to all States, especially nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and a common formula that could be included in an international legally binding instrument.  The Assembly would recommend that further intensive efforts be devoted to the search for such a common approach or common formula and that the various alternative approaches, including those considered by the Conference on Disarmament, be explored further in order to overcome difficulties.

The Assembly would also recommend that the Conference on Disarmament actively continue intensive negotiations with a view to reaching early agreement and concluding effective international agreements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

The Committee took action on a draft resolution on Nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/64/L.31), which would have the Assembly welcome the continued contribution that the Antarctic Treaty and the Treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba are making towards freeing the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas covered by those treaties from nuclear weapons.  It would further note with satisfaction that all nuclear-weapon-free zones in the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas were now in force.

By further terms of the draft text, the Assembly would call upon all concerned States to continue to work together in order to facilitate adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties by all relevant States that have not yet adhered to them and also urge all relevant States to cooperate in resolving outstanding issues with a view to the full implementation of the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty, which entered into force on 21 March 2009.

A separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 7, which calls upon all States to consider all relevant [nuclear-weapon-free zone] proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia.

Operative paragraph 7 was approved by a vote of 165 in favour to 2 against (India, Pakistan), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Israel, Palau, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex X).

The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a vote of 168 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 5 abstentions (India, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Palau) (Annex XI).

Following the vote, the representative of Israel said he would have abstained from the vote and wanted that reflected in the record.

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution on African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (document A/C.1/64/L.33), which would have the Assembly note with satisfaction the entry into force of that treaty on 15 July 2009 and wouldcall upon African States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify it as soon as possible.  It would further call upon the States contemplated in Protocol III to the Treaty that have not yet done so to take all necessary measures to ensure its speedy application to territories for which they are, de jure or de facto, internationally responsible and that lie within the limits of the geographical zone established in the Treaty.

It would also call upon the African States parties to the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that have not yet done so to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency pursuant to the Treaty, and to conclude additional protocols to their safeguards agreements on the basis of the Model Protocol approved by the Board of Governors of the Agency on 15 May 1997.

Also by consensus, the Committee approved a draft resolution on prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/64/L.34), which would have the Assembly 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.

The Assembly would request the Conference on Disarmament, in the negotiations for a convention on the prohibition of radiological weapons, to take into account radioactive wastes as part of the scope of such a convention, and to intensify efforts towards an early conclusion of that convention.

By a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 43 against, with 21 abstentions, the Committee approved a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/64/L.48) (Annex XII).

By its terms, the Assembly would 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.  It would welcome and encourage the efforts to establish new nuclear-weapon-free zones in different parts of the world on the basis of agreements or arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the regions concerned, which is an effective measure for limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons geographically and contributes to the cause of nuclear disarmament.

The Assembly would urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems and also urge them, as an interim measure, to 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, while stressing that reductions in deployments and in operational status cannot substitute for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons

It would also call upon the nuclear-weapon States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument on a joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and call upon all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non-use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.

The text would, in addition, have the Assembly callfor the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices on the basis of the report of the Special Coordinator and the mandate contained therein.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution, entitled Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments (document A/C.a/64/L.54), which would have the Assembly call upon all States to comply fully with all such commitments and not to act in any way that may compromise either cause or that may lead to a new nuclear arms race.  The text would also have the Assembly urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to rescind its announced withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to re-establish cooperation with the IAEA and to rejoin the Six-Party Talks, with a view to achieving the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in a peaceful manner.

The Assembly would, by the draft, call upon all parties to the NPT to spare no effort to ensure a successful outcome of the 2010 Review Conference, and stress that this outcome should build upon the positive results reached at two previous review conferences and advance the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

A separate vote on operative paragraph 4 resulted in retaining the paragraph, by a vote of 159 in favour to 4 against (India, Israel, Pakistan, United States), with 2 abstentions (Bhutan, France) (Annex XIII).

By that provision, the Assembly would reiterate its call upon all States parties to the NPT to spare no effort to achieve the Treaty’s universality, and in that regard, urge India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States promptly and without conditions.

The draft resolution was approved as a whole by a vote of 165 in favour to 5 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, United Kingdom) (Annex XIV).

Regarding L.33, on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty, Spain’s representative said the treaty’s entry into force was a major step for all African countries.  Spain had always supported the treaty and related activities.  However, having carefully studied the invitation to join Protocol 3 of the Treaty, the Spanish Government had decided not to sign.  Underlining two issues, he said that the Pelindaba Treaty did not contain any safeguards in terms of nuclear disarmament or non-proliferation that Spain had not already adopted.  In addition, Spain had been denuclearized.  As for L. 33, Spain had opted not to break consensus on the resolution, but it did not consider itself bound by the consensus as far as operative paragraph 4 was concerned and appealed to the sponsors to find a more balanced wording acceptable to all parties.

The representative of France said his delegation had abstained in the vote on L.23, on the draft on the Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Bangkok Treaty) (document A/C.1/64/L.23).  A regional approach was needed for disarmament and non-proliferation to allow for progress in the area of security.  He supported the establishment of such zones and had given security guarantees to more than 100 countries.  In terms of those zones, France had regularly stated, within the NPT review process framework, that it was prepared to continue on that path.  Indeed, the draft reflected positive developments, compared with the resolution adopted in 2007.  France was ready to participate in an open dialogue on those issues.

Speaking on behalf of his country and the United Kingdom on the draft resolution on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, L.33, he aligned the group with the statement delivered by the European Union.  He recalled that the protocols annexed to the Pelindaba Treaty stipulated that nuclear-weapon States committed themselves not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any African State party to the Treaty.  He underlined that France and the United Kingdom had already complied with Treaty obligations by signing and ratifying all the relevant Protocols attached to the Treaty.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that his delegation had been able to support L.23 based on its fundamental support for nuclear-weapon-free zones created under agreements reached freely by the countries concerned.  It welcomed the decision on a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in South-East Asia.  It was ready to continue consultations with other nuclear-weapon States in accordance with operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution.

He said that the Russian Federation also supported L.31, based on its fundamental support for nuclear-weapon-free zones created under agreements reached freely by the countries concerned.  It welcomed the entry into force of the Central Asia and Pelindaba nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties.  It believed, however, that the adoption of those treaties should not mean the expansion of the areas covered by nuclear-weapon-free zones beyond legally established borders.

The Russian Federation had also been able to support L.54 this year, he said.

The representative of India said that his country abstained in the vote on L.4 as a whole and had voted against preambular paragraph 6 because the focus should be limited to the region the draft intended to address.  India’s position on the NPT was well known.  The call to States outside the Treaty to accede to it and to accede to IAEA protocols was contrary to, and at variance with, relevant principles.

India had also voted against operative paragraph 7 of L.31 and had abstained in the vote on the draft resolution as a whole.

Regarding L.33, he said that India respected the sovereign choice of non-nuclear-weapon States to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones.  That principle was consistent with the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, and India shared and supported the aspirations of the States.  It had conveyed unambiguous respect for the Treaty.

Turning to L.54, he said that India remained committed to the goal of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.  It shared the view that disarmament and non-proliferation were mutually reinforcing and that there should be a credible time-bound target for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It had voted against the draft resolution, however, because India could not agree to accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State.  In fact, there was no question of India joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon State.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on L.23, welcomed the draft resolution’s support for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones and its encouragement of the five nuclear-weapon States and the States parties of the Bangkok Treaty to resume consultations on the outstanding issues.  His country attached importance to the development of internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free zones.  Those could make an important contribution to regional and global security, provided they were established as set out in the 1999 United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines.  It was the United Kingdom’s long-standing policy to support the principle of the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, and it regretted that the ASEAN States parties had not conducted consultations in accordance with the Disarmament Commission’s guidelines before signing the Treaty.  The United Kingdom was still awaiting a formal response to the non-paper issued by France, the United States and the United Kingdom to the ASEAN States on 4 September 2002.  His country continued to stand ready to resume consultations with the concerned States parties to nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties to reach a mutually satisfactory outcome regarding outstanding issues.

Turning to L.31, and speaking on behalf of his country, France and the United States, he emphasized the importance those countries attached to the development of internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free zones, which could make an important contribution to regional and global security, provided they were established as set out in the Disarmament Commission guidelines.  The three countries appreciated the willingness of the sponsors of the draft resolution to engage in constructive discussions of their concerns and welcomed the changes to the text compared to resolution 63/65.

He said that they still believed, however, that the text was contradictory to propose simultaneously the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone that would be composed largely of the high seas and yet say that it would be fully consistent with applicable principles and rules of international law relating to the freedom of the high seas and the right of passage through maritime space, including those of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  The three countries continued to question whether the real goal of the draft text was, in fact, the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone covering the high seas.  They did not believe that that ambiguity had been sufficiently clarified.  For that reason, they had voted against the draft resolution again this year.

Turning to L.48, the representative of Pakistan said that his country shared the goal of nuclear disarmament.  However, Pakistan was convinced that the references to the NPT were unwarranted and, as such, had abstained.

On L.31, Pakistan had always supported the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in accordance with agreement reached freely by the countries concerned, he said.  The call for its creation in South Asia failed to acknowledge the reality on the ground.  The nuclear explosions in the region had disrupted the strategic balance, and with those explosions, the objective of the establishment of such a zone had been defeated.  Pakistan appreciated the effort of the sponsors in revising the draft resolution, but the call to accede to the NPT had caused it to vote against operative paragraph 6 and to abstain from the resolution as a whole.

On L.54, he said that Pakistan could not accept the NPT-related references in the text, owing to its known position on that subject.

The representative of Venezuela said the delegation had joined consensus on the draft decision on preventing the acquisition by terrorists of radioactive materials and sources (document A/C.1/64/L.17), and supported the text.  She trusted that when the next resolution on the subject was adopted it would include, among other things, the notion that preventing terrorist and non-State actors from acquiring weapons of mass destruction would be the elimination of those weapons.

The representative of Canada explained his delegation’s vote on L.4, on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.  He had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole because the text unfairly singled out Israel.  If the draft’s goal was to stem proliferation, then it should require that all States adhered to and complied fully with their obligations.  He regretted that Iran failed to comply with Security Council resolutions and he was concerned about recent revelations about undeclared facilities in Syria.  He encouraged Syria to cooperate.

The representative of Israel said that establishing the Middle East as a weapon-of-mass-destruction-free zone was a vision to which Israel aspired.  However, grave cases of non-compliance had not been included in the draft on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East, L.3.  The international community should not overlook that four of five non-compliance cases were located in the Middle East.  Threats directed against Israel were exacerbated by certain States.  Essential progress must be made through mutual recognition before such a zone could be attained.  The creation of such a zone should emanate within the region.  Matching political will must be demonstrated.  Dialogue, taking into account viewpoints of all States, must take place.  That had not happened at the recent IAEA conference and its resulting resolutions.  Israel had not abandoned a vision where negotiations were possible over a nuclear-weapon-free zone, but only when all States took part in discussions could its realization be possible.

The representative of Brazil said his delegation voted in favour of the draft on reducing nuclear danger, L.18, because he was convinced that the review of nuclear doctrines was crucial to reduce risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons.  Brazil believed that reducing nuclear danger could not substitute for multilateral efforts.  The mere existence of those weapons constituted a grave global risk.  He would have preferred the thrust of the draft to have been the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

The representative of the United States provided explanations of vote on three drafts.  His country had voted against the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, L.4, which was unable to find a balance.  Nor did it mention the failure of a country in the region to comply with the IAEA.  However, he reiterated the United States long-standing belief in the importance of the NPT.

On the draft on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, L.24, he said the text did not accurately reflect the work of the Conference on Disarmament.  The United States supported CD/1864, but could not support the draft as it was written.

Regarding the draft “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments”, L.54, the United States had engaged in intense consultations with the sponsors, but the two sides had been unable to reach agreement on the text.  He looked forward to continuing discussions on the subject.

ANNEX I

Vote on Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone

The draft resolution, on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East (document A/C.1/64/L.3), was approved by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to none against, with 3 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, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, 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, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, 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, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Côte d’Ivoire, India, Israel.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda.

ANNEX II

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

Preambular paragraph 6 of the draft resolution, on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/64/L.4), was approved by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 4 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, 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, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, 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, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Israel, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Pakistan.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda.

ANNEX III

Vote on Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in Middle East

The draft resolution as a whole, on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/64/L.4), was approved by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 5 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, 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, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, 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, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

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

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tonga, Uganda.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Follow-up to Nuclear Disarmament Obligations from NPT Review Conferences, Preambular Paragraph 6

Preambular paragraph 6 of the draft resolution, on follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/64/L.6), was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 48 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  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, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, India, Peru, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, Serbia, Timor-Leste.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Nauru, Palau, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda.

ANNEX V

Vote on Follow-up to Nuclear Disarmament Obligations from NPT Review Conferences

The draft resolution, on the follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/64/L.6), was approved by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 56 against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  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, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, 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), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Abstain:  Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Haiti, Honduras, India, Peru, Rwanda, Samoa, Tonga.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tuvalu, Uganda.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Reducing Nuclear Danger

The draft resolution, on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/64/L.18), was approved by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 50 against, with 15 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, 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), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Serbia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Uganda.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Nuclear Weapons Convention

The draft resolution Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/64/L.20) was approved by a recorded vote of 116 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, 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), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Serbia, Uzbekistan.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Uganda.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty

The draft resolution, on Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Bangkok Treaty) (document A/C.1/64/L.23), was approved by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to none against, with 5 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, 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, 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, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  France, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Uganda.

ANNEX IX

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.1/64/L.24), was approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to none against, with 58 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, 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, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Uganda.

ANNEX X

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere, Operative Paragraph 7

Operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution, on nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/64/L.31), was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 2 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, 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, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Pakistan.

Abstain:  Bhutan, France, Israel, Palau, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Nauru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Uganda.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution, on nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/64/L.31), was approved by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 3 against, with 5 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, 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, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, 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, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  India, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Pakistan, Palau.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Monaco, Nauru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Uganda.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament

The draft resolution, on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/64/L.48), was approved by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 43 against, with 21 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, 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), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, India, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Serbia, Sweden, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uzbekistan.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Uganda.

ANNEX XIII

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free World, Operative Paragraph 4

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution, entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” (document A/C.1/64/L.54), was approved by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 4 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, Bolivia, 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 Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, 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, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, 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, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Israel, Pakistan, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, France.

Absent:  Botswana, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uganda.

ANNEX XIV

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free World

The draft resolution, entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” (document A/C.1/64/L.54), was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 5 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, 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 Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, 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, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, 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, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Bhutan, Micronesia (Federated States of), Pakistan, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Uganda.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record