First Committee Defers Action on Text Proposing Move to Geneva, while Approving 9 Draft Resolutions
Amid divergence on cybersecurity and other critical areas, some delegates called for a return to consensus, as the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) today approved nine draft resolutions and deferred action on another, which proposes moving its seventy‑fifth session overseas.
Taking up a package of drafts on other disarmament measures, the Committee first decided to defer action on the draft resolution “Improving the effectiveness of the work of the First Committee” (document A/C.1/74/L.57/Rev.1). By its terms, the Assembly would request the Secretary‑General to report by 1 February on compliance by the Government of the United States with its obligations under the 1947 Headquarters Agreement, with regard to ensuring to all Member States’ representatives without exception unfettered access, and its impact on the First Committee’s work. The Assembly would also decide that if the issues raised in the report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country are not resolved in a reasonable period of time, it shall consider convening the First Committee’s next session in Geneva or Vienna.
Taking action on cybersecurity drafts, the Committee approved by recorded vote the draft resolution “Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/74/L.49/Rev.1), with 161 in favour to 10 against (Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela), and 8 abstentions (Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Myanmar, Palau).
By its terms, the Assembly would welcome commencement of the work of the Group of Governmental Experts on advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security, established pursuant to resolution A/RES/73/266. The Assembly would also call upon Member States to support measures to address the emerging cyberspace threats and ensure an open and secure information and communications technology environment, and, at the same time, be guided in their use of such technologies by previous reports of the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security.
The representative of the United States said efforts should focus on the Group of Governmental Experts and not on negotiations in the First Committee, adding that he remains disappointed that the Russian Federation has refused this objective and has created a rift.
The Russian Federation’s delegate said that despite his delegation’s efforts to re‑establish consensus and adopt a single draft resolution to be accepted by all, the United States proposed a separate document, undermining unity within the United Nations. A real consensus is possible in the General Assembly, he said, calling on all Member States to restore a real unity on this issue.
Also by a recorded vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/74/L.50/Rev.1), with 124 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Georgia, Israel, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States), with 48 abstentions. By the terms of that text, the Assembly would welcome the launch of negotiations in the format of the United Nations Open‑ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security and the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security.
Australia’s representative expressed his delegation’s disappointment that the climate is not yet conducive to a single text on cyberspace, saying that, in a change from the seventy‑third session, he abstained on “L.50/Rev.1”.
Malaysia’s delegate said he voted in favour of both cybersecurity drafts, adding that the Group of Governmental Experts and the Open‑ended Working Group are complementary, both being platforms to conduct vital work to build mutual trust.
By a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United Kingdom, United States), with 52 abstentions, the Committee approved the draft resolution “Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non‑proliferation” (document A/C.1/74/L.32). By its terms, the Assembly would request States parties to instruments dealing with weapons of mass destruction to consult and cooperate when resolving noncompliance and implementation concerns, and to refrain from taking unilateral actions.
The Committee approved, by a recorded vote of a recorded vote of 176 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Palau), the draft resolution “Objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures” (document A/C.1/74/L.51). By its terms, the General Assembly would call upon Member States to provide the Secretary‑General, by 30 April annually, with a report on their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data are available.
The Committee also approved the draft resolution “Strengthening and developing the system of arms control, disarmament and non‑proliferation treaties and agreements” (document A/C.1/74/L.56/Rev.1), by a recorded vote of 174 in favour, to none against, with 5 abstentions (Colombia, Georgia, Palau, Sudan, Ukraine). By its terms, the Assembly would urge all States parties to such instruments to implement them in full.
In this regard, the representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the bloc’s member States joined consensus on “L.56/Rev.1”. However, he added, it is important that all parties, including the main sponsor, the Russian Federation, contribute to improving the strategic context and preserving and advancing such treaties and agreements.
Prior to approving the draft resolution “Youth, disarmament and non‑proliferation” (document A/C.1/74/L.48) without a vote, the Committee decided to retain preambular paragraph 8 by a recorded vote of 175 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Russian Federation, Syria). By the terms of that paragraph, the Assembly would note action 38 of the Secretary‑General’s disarmament agenda, “Securing our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament”, in which he describes the young generation as the ultimate force for change and proposes actions to promote their engagement.
The Committee approved the following draft resolutions without a vote: “Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament” (document A/C.1/74/L.15), “Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control” (document A/C.1/74/L.29) and “Relationship between disarmament and development” (document A/C.1/74/L.35).
At the outset of the meeting, delegates shared divergent views about action taken on draft resolutions and decisions on 5 November related to conventional weapons. (For voting results, see Press Release GA/DIS/3642 of 5 November.)
The Committee also began consideration of draft resolutions and decisions on regional disarmament and security.
The First Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 7 November, to continue to take action on draft resolutions and decisions before it.
Background
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to take action on all draft resolutions and decisions before it. For background information, see Press Release GA/DIS/3624 of 10 October, GA/DIS/3640 of 1 November, GA/DIS/3641 of 4 November and GA/DIS/3642 of 5 November.
Action on Draft Texts
At the outset of the meeting, representatives explained their positions on draft resolutions related to conventional weapons which the Committee approved on 5 November. (For details on voting results, see Press Release GA/DIS/3642.)
The representative of Myanmar, explaining his delegation’s abstention on the draft resolutions “Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti‑Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction” (document A/C.1/74/L.45) and “Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions” (document A/C.1/74/L.46), said his country supports the provisions of those two instruments. However, capacity constraints prevent Myanmar from adhering to the Mine Ban Treaty, but it is considering doing so.
The representative of Brazil said his delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution “The Arms Trade Treaty” (document A/C.1/74/L.25) as a whole, but abstained on operative paragraph 9 as the use of the term “synergies”, in the phrase “acknowledges synergies between the Programme of Action (on Small Arms and Light Weapons) and the Treaty”, is inadequate. Regarding “L.46,” he said Brazil did not participate in the Oslo process and disagrees with the establishment of negotiation processes outside the Convention. Serious loopholes in the instrument allow the use of cluster munitions with sophisticated mechanisms manufactured in a small number of countries with more advanced defence industries.
The representative of Israel said his delegation does not consider the Programme of Action on Small Arms as the right venue to address the issue of ammunition, referring to operative paragraph 9 in “L.25” and preambular paragraph 7 and operative paragraph 6 in the draft resolution “The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects” (document A/C.1/74/L.43).
The representative of United States abstained on “L.46” because his delegation is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and does not accept that it represents a norm or a prohibition on the use of these weapons. When used in accordance to international humanitarian law, cluster munitions can be used to lessen collateral damage. As this is a practical matter for the military, they remain an integral part of United States force capabilities. Turning to “L.43” and “L.25”, he reiterated that the issue of ammunition is outside the realm of the Arms Trade Treaty. The United States strongly and unequivocally opposes the inclusion of ammunition language and cannot accept statements claiming that this instrument is a success when consensus was clearly not achieved.
The representative of Singapore said his delegation voted in favour of “L.45” because it supports efforts to address anti‑personnel mines, adding that his country adopted an indefinite moratorium on their export. Similarly, his delegation voted in favour of “L.46” because it supports actions on cluster munitions.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said his delegation abstained on “L.45” because it is not a party of the Mine Ban Convention due to the situation on the Korean Peninsula. He supported tight control of anti‑personnel mines and advocated for their limited and responsible use, adding that the Government contributes to demining and victim assistance efforts. In a similar vein, due to the current situation on the Korean Peninsula, his delegation is not part of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and abstained on “L.46”. While the Republic of Korea fully shares concerns of the international community on the human impact of cluster munitions, his delegation is unable to support the draft resolution at the moment, but support efforts to mitigate human problems associated with these arms.
The representative of Argentina, explaining that her delegation abstained on “L.46”, said the text was not sufficiently ambitious and included two articles which run contrary to the goal of the full prohibition of cluster munitions.
The representative of India said her delegation abstained on “L.25”, explaining that her country has established strong and effective export controls that conform with the Arms Trade Treaty. While India abstained on “L.45”, it supports the vision of a world free of landmines.
The representative of Cyprus said her delegation abstained on “L.46”. She noted that its ratification process is still ongoing due to the abnormal security situation on the island of Cyprus.
The representative of Pakistan said his delegation abstained on “L.45”, adding that reliance on anti‑personnel mines is an integral part of his country’s self‑defence strategy.
The representative of Syria said his delegation abstained on the draft resolution “Transparency in armaments” (document A/C.1/74/L.30), due to the current situation in the Middle East. Syria voted in favour of several paragraphs in “L.43”, given the importance of the topic and in consideration of Syria’s brothers and sisters in Africa and the Caribbean.
The representative of Ecuador explained his delegation’s decision to support, oppose and abstain on several draft resolutions. He added that Ecuador is examining the Arms Trade Treaty to see how it is being implemented and whether the problems it contains persist.
The Committee then turned to its cluster on other disarmament measures and international security, taking up the following nine draft resolutions: “Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament” (document A/C.1/74/L.15); “Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control” (document A/C.1/74/L.29); “Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non‑proliferation” (document A/C.1/74/L.32); “Relationship between disarmament and development” (document A/C.1/74/L.35); “Youth, disarmament and non‑proliferation” (document A/C.1/74/L.48); “Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/74/L.49/Rev.1); “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/74/L.50/Rev.1); “Objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures” (document A/C.1/74/L.51); and “Strengthening and developing the system of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements” (document A/C.1/74/L.56/Rev.1).
The representative of the Republic of Korea said his delegation has sponsored “L.48” with the aim of empowering and educating youth in disarmament because they can provide fresh views and ideas that will guide future efforts, also expressing hope for a consensus on the draft resolution.
The representative of the United States introduced “L.49/Rev.1”, expressing hope for its approval by consensus. Efforts should focus on the Group of Governmental Experts and not on negotiations in the First Committee, he said, adding that he is disappointed the Russian Federation has refused this objective and has created a rift. He welcomed new efforts to advance the issue of responsible State behaviour in outer space.
The representative of Cuba said her delegation supports “L.50/Rev.1” and called on members to support it because it reflects an existing concern towards the development of technologies for military purposes in the field of information and communications. The right way to address this concern is through the Open‑ended Working Group to develop an international legally binding instrument to address cybersecurity and current threats in this domain.
The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking also on behalf of France, said regarding “L.29” that he is strongly committed to the fight against climate change, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change. They will also join consensus on “L.35”, adding however that the notion of a symbiotic link between disarmament issues and development policy seems questionable. The relationship between the two is complex, given that investment in defence can be a requirement for development.
The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the bloc’s member States will join consensus on “L.56/Rev.1”. It is important that all parties, including the main sponsor, the Russian Federation, contribute to improving the strategic context and preserving and advancing treaties and agreements on arms control, disarmament and non‑proliferation.
The representative of France, speaking also on behalf of the United Kingdom and the United States, said they will support “L.15”, which highlights the benefits and challenges of the developments of science and technology in the field of disarmament, non‑proliferation and arms control. It is an issue that is discussed in many forums, she said, adding that the rights referred to in preambular paragraph 5 are those enshrined in provisions of the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction.
The representative of Australia said his delegation, in a change from the seventy‑third session, will abstain on “L.50/Rev.1”, adding that it is disappointed that the climate is not yet conducive to a single text on cyberspace.
The representative of the Russian Federation explained his position on “L.49/Rev.1”, saying that from the beginning, his delegation has advocated to re‑establish consensus and adopt a single draft resolution to be accepted by all. This is the only logical way to reach consensus, he said, noting that the Russian Federation has proposed to the United States to jointly develop a document. Instead, the United States proposed a separate document on the same issue, which undermines unity within the United Nations and is based on the logic of dividing the international community. Moreover, the language implies the use of information and communications technologies for military aims. The Russian Federation cannot accept those proposals. A real consensus is possible in the General Assembly, he said, calling on all Member States to restore a real unity on this issue.
The Committee first took up the draft resolution “Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament” (document A/C.1/74/L.15). By its terms, the General Assembly would invite Member States to continue to apply developments in science and technology for disarmament‑related purposes. It would also call upon them to remain vigilant in understanding new and emerging developments in science and technology that could imperil international security.
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution.
It then considered the draft resolution “Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control” (document A/C.1/74/L.29). By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm that international disarmament forums should consider relevant norms in negotiating treaties and agreements on disarmament and arms limitation. It would also call upon States to adopt unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral measures that will contribute to ensuring the application of scientific and technological progress within the framework of international security, disarmament and other related spheres, without detriment to the environment or to its effective contribution to attaining sustainable development.
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution.
Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution “Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non‑proliferation” (document A/C.1/74/L.32), by which terms the Assembly would request States parties to instruments dealing with weapons of mass destruction to consult and cooperate among themselves when resolving noncompliance and implementation concerns, and to refrain from unilateral actions against one another.
The Committee then approved it by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United Kingdom, United States), with 52 abstentions.
The Committee then took up the draft resolution “Relationship between disarmament and development” (document A/C.1/74/L.35). By its terms, the Assembly would urge the international community to devote part of the resources made available from disarmament and arms limitation agreements to economic and social development to reduce the gap between developed and developing countries. It would also encourage the international community to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and to note the contribution that disarmament could provide and to make greater efforts to integrate disarmament, humanitarian and development activities.
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution.
It then turned its attention to the draft resolution “Youth, disarmament and non‑proliferation” (document A/C.1/74/L.48). By the terms of that text, the Assembly would call upon Member States, the United Nations, relevant specialized agencies, and regional and subregional organizations to consider developing and implementing policies and programmes for young people to increase and facilitate their constructive engagement in the field of disarmament and non‑proliferation.
By a recorded vote of 175 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Russian Federation, Syria), it decided to retain preambular paragraph 8, by which the Assembly would note action 38 of the Secretary‑General’s disarmament agenda, “Securing our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament”, in which he describes the young generation as the ultimate force for change and proposes actions to promote their engagement.
Acting without a vote, the Committee then approved the draft resolution.
Next, the Committee turned its attention to the draft resolution “Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/74/L.49/Rev.1). By its terms, the Assembly would welcome commencement of the work of the Group of Governmental Experts on advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security, established pursuant to resolution A/RES/73/266. The Assembly would also call upon Member States to support measures to address the emerging cyberspace threats and ensure an open and secure information and communications technology environment, and, at the same time, be guided in their use of such technologies by previous reports of the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security.
The Committee approved that text by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 10 against (Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela), with 8 abstentions (Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Myanmar, Palau).
It then turned its attention to the draft resolution “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/74/L.50/Rev.1). By the terms of that text, the Assembly would welcome the launch of negotiations in the format of the United Nations Open‑ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security and the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security.
The Committee approved the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Georgia, Israel, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States), with 48 abstentions.
The Committee then turned to the draft resolution “Objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures” (document A/C.1/74/L.51). By its terms, the Assembly would call upon Member States to provide the Secretary‑General, by 30 April annually, with a report on their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data are available, preferably using one of the online reporting forms, including a nil report or the “single figure” report on military expenditures or any other format developed in the context of similar reporting on military expenditures to other international or regional organizations.
The Committee Secretary delivered an oral statement on programme budget implications.
The Committee approved the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Palau).
The Committee then took up the draft resolution “Strengthening and developing the system of arms control, disarmament and non‑proliferation treaties and agreements” (document A/C.1/74/L.56/Rev.1). By its terms, the Assembly would urge all States parties to arms control, disarmament and non‑proliferation treaties and agreements to implement them in full. It would support international efforts aimed at safeguarding the integrity of existing arms control, disarmament and non‑proliferation treaties and agreements in the strongest interest of humankind. It would also request the Secretary‑General to continue to help to protect the integrity of such treaties and agreements and to strengthen their systems.
The Committee approved the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Colombia, Georgia, Palau, Sudan, Ukraine).
The representative of the United States, speaking also for the United Kingdom, said he voted in favour of “L.56/Rev.1”. However, the Russian Federation’s sponsorship of the draft resolution is in contrast with its actions. Progress in arms control is a value derived from a party’s compliance. Instead, Moscow violates its obligations as a treaty partner and behaves in clear violation of chemical weapons treaties, including its use of the agent novichok in the United Kingdom, killing one woman and injuring four people. Citing more cases of aggressions that have created a deficit of trust involving the Russian Federation, he said Moscow is updating and increasing its nuclear stockpiles and related systems and is producing intercontinental cruise missiles. Turning to “L.50/Rev.1”, he said efforts by the Group of Governmental Experts and the Open‑ended Working Group are two distinct processes, and even though he supported the draft resolution, his delegation voted against it due to concerns about some controversial or undefined language. As for “L.29”, he said his delegation did not participate on its drafting and does not see a connection between environmental issues and arms control. On “L.35”, he said disarmament and development are two distinct issues, adding that his delegation is not bound by international agreements that state this idea.
The representative of Malaysia said he voted in favour of “L.49/Rev.1” and “L.50/Rev.1” because his delegation believes both carry great value in the field of information technologies and national security. Malaysia believes the Group of Governmental Experts and the Open‑ended Working Group are complementary, both being platforms to conduct vital work to build mutual trust and transparency.
The representative of Mexico said her delegation voted in favour of “L.50/Rev.1”, but disassociates itself from operational paragraph 8 because it is not accurate to say multilateral disarmament is reached by consensus in nature. Each treaty has its own dynamic, and there is no common denominator. Indeed, consensus must not be confused with uniformity.
The representative of Israel said his delegation voted against “L.50/Rev.1” for several reasons. Discussions in the Open‑ended Working Group should support, not duplicate, other efforts, including the Group of Governmental Experts.
The representative of China, explaining his delegation’s vote against “L.49/Rev.1”, said the Open‑ended Working Group’s first meeting was a success. However, a certain country’s confrontational approach is not good for achieving consensus. He called on that country to join his and others to support the reinforcement of the two processes.
The representative of the United Kingdom, also speaking on behalf of Canada, said the vote against “L.50/Rev.1” reflected their opposition to language in the draft resolution and not the Open‑ended Working Group process. It is disappointing that the amendments they proposed were not incorporated in the draft. Communication is the path to consensus and the United Kingdom and Canada are willing to listen and learn, he said, adding that others should do so as well. He said the two delegations voted in favour of “L.49/Rev.1”.
The representative of Pakistan joined consensus on “L.15”, adding that proliferation concerns should not be a pretext to deny dual‑use technology.
The representative of Brazil said preambular paragraph 5 of “L.15” is not ideal, but formulated in a way that contributes to a more balanced approach to the issues of science and technology addressed in the draft resolution. Turning to “L.49/Rev.1” and “L.50/Rev.1”, he said Brazil voted in favour of both, but regrets that the Committee had to vote on competing draft resolutions.
The representative of Chile said his delegation voted in favour of both “L.49/Rev.1” and “L.50/Rev.1”.
The representative of Armenia, referring to “L.32”, “L.33” and “L.35”, highlighted his delegation’s reservations to all paragraphs that refer to the outcome document of the 2018 midterm ministerial meeting of the Non‑Aligned Movement in Baku, which contains language that distorts the essence of the Nagorno‑Karabakh conflict. He urged the Non‑Aligned Movement to act in line with the spirit and logic of the Nagorno‑Karabakh peace process.
The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the bloc’s member States regretfully could not support “L.50/Rev.1” due to reservations with non‑consensus‑based language. He anticipated continuing a constructive engagement with the Group of Governmental Experts and the Open‑ended Working Group with a view to promoting a free, open, stable and secure cyberspace where human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and international law are fully respected and upheld.
The representative of New Zealand said her delegation abstained on “L.50/Rev.1” due to some language that is not acceptable. New Zealand will continue to act positively to support stability in cyberspace and work in a spirit of constructiveness.
The representative of Japan said he wanted “L.50/Rev.1” to be adopted by consensus, but could not support some of the language in the draft resolution, so his delegation abstained. At the same time, he said his delegation will continue to participate in a constructive manner.
The representative of Switzerland said his delegation voted in favour of “L.49/Rev.1” and “L.50/Rev.1” because of the positive developments of negotiations around information and communications technologies. Calling for a return to consensus, he said “L.49/Rev.1” mirrors past draft resolutions about this topic, however, it would have gathered more support had it relied on agreed language. His delegation voted in favour of “L.56/Rev.1” because a rules‑based order is necessary for international security.
The representative of Cuba said her delegation voted against “L.49/Rev.1” because the main sponsor should have shown flexibility in order to reach consensus. Indeed, there is no need for a draft resolution on the Group of Governmental Experts. This has led to polarization in the Committee, with two parallel draft resolutions competing with each other and dividing the international community. The Open‑ended Working Group is the appropriate forum for transparent and democratic negotiations, she said. Further, Cuba remains very concerned at the posture of the main sponsor, who is developing ways to attack cyberspace. Information and communications technologies should not be used in the military or as punitive actions.
The Committee then turned to its cluster on regional disarmament and security, taking up the following five draft resolutions: “Regional disarmament” (document A/C.1/74/L.5); “Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels” (document A/C.1/74/L.7); “Confidence‑building measures in the regional and subregional context” (document A/C.1/74/L.8); “Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region” (document A/C.1/74/L.9); and “Implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace” (document A/C.1/74/L.28).
The representative of the European Union said the bloc took note of operative paragraph 5 in “L.9” to maintain consensus. The proposed reference to legal instruments in force does not imply a change of the European Union’s support for the Comprehensive Nuclear‑Test‑Ban Treaty, which regrettably has not yet entered into force.
The representative of Algeria introduced “L.9”, saying that its primary objective is to contribute to various efforts aimed at establishing a peaceful and stable Mediterranean region through dialogue and cooperation. The Committee’s previous session held votes on two of its operative paragraphs. He expressed hope that the current session would see the draft resolution get its traditional unanimous support.
The representative of Pakistan, introducing the three texts on regional disarmament, “L.5”, “L.6” and “L.7”, expressed regret that a vote has been called on preambular paragraph 7 of “L.7”. He encouraged all delegations to vote in favour of both that paragraph and the draft as a whole.