First Committee Sends 20 Nuclear Weapons Drafts to General Assembly Requiring 33 Separate Votes for Adoption
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) today approved 19 draft resolutions and one draft decision on nuclear weapons, including a draft resolution entitled “Nuclear Disarmament”, which drew extensive debate.
Introduced by Myanmar, the draft (document A/C.1/77/L.42) required four separate recorded votes before the whole was adopted by vote of 118 in favour to 42 against, with 20 abstentions.
Among its several provisions, the General Assembly would express deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and urge nuclear-weapon States to achieve their total elimination at the earliest time possible. It would also urge those States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development and stockpiling of nuclear warheads, deactivate nuclear weapons in the interim, and agree on an internationally legally binding instrument not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
Prior to approving the draft as a whole, three separate recorded votes were required. First, the Committee retained preambular paragraph 32, by a vote of 107 in favour to 41 against, with 13 abstentions. By its terms, the Assembly would welcome the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Next, the Committee approved operative paragraph 16, by which the Assembly would call for the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. It retained that paragraph by a vote of 152 in favour to 2 against (North Macedonia, Pakistan), with 12 abstentions.
Then, it retained operative paragraph 19, by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 1 against (India), with 16 abstentions, by which the Assembly would call for the early entry into force, universalization and strict observance of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
According to a draft resolution on the CTBT (document A/C.1/77/L.52), the Assembly would urge all States not to carry out nuclear-weapon test explosions and, pending the Treaty’s entry into force, maintain their testing moratoriums. In that connection, it would urge States that have not done so to sign and ratify the Treaty. It would condemn the six nuclear-weapon tests by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to 1 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), with 5 abstentions (India, Mauritius, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria).
Prior to its approval as a whole, the Committee voted to retain preambular paragraph 7, which would have the Assembly reaffirm the vital importance of the entry into force of the Treaty as a core element of the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. The vote was 162 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria).
The Committee next retained preambular paragraph 8, by which the Assembly would recall the Final Declaration adopted by the twelfth Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Test-Ban Treaty, as well as the joint statement by the Friends of the Treaty. It did so by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India), with 10 abstentions (Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria).
Operative paragraph 1 was retained by a separate recorded vote of 163 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria). By its terms, the Assembly would stress the vital importance of signing and ratifying the Treaty without delay and without conditions to achieve its earliest entry into force.
The Committee retained the fifth operative paragraph, which asks the Assembly to condemn the six nuclear tests conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and call on that country to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. The vote was 160 in favour to 1 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria).
The Committee also retained operative paragraph 6 by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria), by which the Assembly would urge all States to sign and ratify the Treaty, particularly those whose ratification is needed for its entry into force.
Four draft resolutions on nuclear-weapon-free zones were approved without a vote: “Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco)” (document A/C.1/77/L.16), “Mongolia’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status” (document A/C.1/77/L.19), “African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty” (document A/C.1/77/L.30) and “Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia” (document A/C.1/77/L.49).
General statements on the nuclear weapons cluster were made by representatives of the United States, Japan, Myanmar, Mongolia, Malaysia and Cuba.
Explaining their votes were representatives of South Africa, United States, Israel, Russian Federation, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China, Pakistan, France, India, Malaysia, Iran and Syria.
The First Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 31 October, to continue taking action on all draft resolutions and decisions before it.
General Statements
BRUCE I. TURNER (United States) said he co-sponsored with Japan a resolution entitled “Steps to building a common roadmap towards a world without nuclear weapons” (document A/C.1/77/L.61) as he had done for the past two years. The resolution is designed to build a bridge between nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon States and capitalize on the consensus agreed at the tenth Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in August before the Russian Federation, alone, blocked consensus on the final document. The resolution demonstrates a commitment to achieving the NPT’s article VI obligations to pursue in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. It urges all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to make every effort to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again, pending their total elimination, and to refrain from any inflammatory rhetoric concerning their use based on the recognition that all States have a shared interest in averting a nuclear war. He called on delegations to “vote yes on L.1”.
Mr. OSAGAWA (Japan) said that every year since 1994, it submitted a resolution on the elimination of nuclear weapons laying out a pragmatic path to realizing a world free of nuclear weapons. Every year, the resolution was adopted by the General Assembly. At the tenth NPT Review Conference in August, while consensus was blocked on the draft final document by a single State, the NPT States parties reconfirmed their firm belief that maintaining and strengthening the Treaty as the cornerstone of the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime was in the interest of the international community as a whole. In addition, Japan considers the draft final document set forth a new basis for the international community to advance the realization of a world free of nuclear weapons and to have practical discussions on nuclear disarmament. The threat of nuclear weapons’ use is higher than at any time since the cold war. The international community faces serious divergences to approach and a lack of mutual confidence, making it extremely difficult to advance to a world without those weapons. Japan’s Prime Minister has announced a Hiroshima action plan, offered as a first step of realizing a road map to span the gap, in light of the reality of the current security environment. The momentum must be reinvigorated despite of or because of the very difficult circumstances. So, in 2022, the resolution realizes pragmatic actions reflecting valuable language and ideas from the tenth NPT Review Conference. As the only country to have endured atomic bombs during war, Japan will make every effort to realizing the goal, and hoped for the support of Member States for the resolution.
KYAW MOE TUN (Myanmar) introduced the draft resolution entitled “Nuclear Disarmament” (document A/C.1/77/L.42), which he had tabled every year since 1995. It was always adopted with overwhelming support. The draft asks all nuclear-weapon States to take effective disarmament measures to eliminate all nuclear weapons at the earliest possible date. It underlines the importance of convening, as a priority, a United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to review progress made in this regard. It also underlines the importance of the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States, in the final document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT, to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States Parties are committed under the Treaty’s article VI. Among its other provisions, it urges the Conference on Disarmament to commence as early as possible substantive work, including the immediate commencement of negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention. The draft resolution does not feature a substantive amendment.
ENKHBOLD VORSHILOV (Mongolia) introduced the draft resolution entitled “Mongolia’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status” (document A/C.1/77/L.19). The draft resolution is based on the previous resolutions on the item, adopted without a vote and contains only technical updates. Mongolia considers nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation and complete elimination of the nuclear weapons and the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones to be the best and most effective means of building a world free of nuclear weapons.
SHIVANAND SIVAMOHAN (Malaysia) stated that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons remained a crucial milestone in the collective efforts of the international community to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. Recent events demonstrate the continued salience of the Court’s opinion more than a quarter-century after it was rendered. As the Secretary-General rightly warned, this was a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the cold war. The consecutive failure to adopt a substantive outcome at the ninth and tenth NPT Review Conferences is a cause for great concern. The Treaty is arguably in a state of crisis, which, if not addressed expeditiously, will affect its integrity and credibility amid heightened geopolitical tensions.
He introduced the draft resolution entitled “Follow up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” (document A/C.1/77/L.22). The advisory opinion remains a significant contribution to the field of nuclear disarmament and its humanitarian context highlights the moral imperative of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. He hopes it garners the broadest possible support.
ROSANIS ROMERO LÓPEZ (Cuba) called on States to vote in favour of draft resolutions “L.7”, “L.13”, “L.17”, “L.22”, “L.37”, “L.42”, and “L.58”. Regarding “L.7”, on follow-up to the 2013 high-level meeting of the General Assembly on nuclear disarmament, she recalled that this Non-Aligned Movement initiative made it possible for the world to annually celebrate the day for the total elimination of nuclear weapons on 26 September. Regarding “L.17” on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, she said that it was the first legally binding instrument that stressed the illegal nature of those weapons. They were inhumane and ethically indefensible, and she called on Member States to ratify the Treaty as soon as possible as the complete elimination of nuclear weapons was the only way to avoid their dreadful impact. Concerning “L.42”, he said that nuclear disarmament should be accorded the highest priority.
Action
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of South Africa said he would vote “no” on the resolution on building a common roadmap towards a world free of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/77/L.61). South Africa has traditionally not opposed resolutions in the First Committee, but it was left with no choice but to do so on this text. Japan had expanded the resolution by building on selected elements from the draft final document of the tenth NPT Review Conference, which was not adopted in what was an “unprecedented consecutive failure”. Unfortunately, that “L.61” does not reflect that failure or the challenges confronting the NPT. In fact, it attempts to undo the foundation of the NPT and its extension, giving only scant focus to nuclear disarmament. It also set up very low expectations for the eleventh NPT Review Conference. It seems to be more about moving towards nuclear disarmament than about attaining it. It is a step in the wrong direction and sets back the nuclear disarmament agenda. In fact, it strives to make nuclear weapons “more palatable” and calls into question the NPT’s indefinite extension.
The representative of the United States said he would vote “no” on “L.2” on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East because it wrongly singles out one regional State that is in full compliance with its commitments, while ignoring serious nuclear proliferation and compliance issues. All regional States should pursue dialogue and confidence-building measures with their neighbours rather than introduce divisive resolutions out of touch with regional security and compliance challenges in the region. The Middle East faces significant nuclear proliferation risks. Foremost among them is Iran's nuclear escalations, including actions with no credible civilian justification, as called for by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors. Iran must urgently cooperate with the Agency to resolve outstanding safeguards and concerns over possible undeclared nuclear material. Syria has been in non-compliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement and the NPT for more than a decade, and still refuses to cooperate with the IAEA's investigation. Far too many regional States have yet to sign and bring into force the Agency’s Additional Protocol. Even more troubling, some officials in the region made public comments that question their commitment to their State's NPT obligations. The United States cannot endorse a resolution that focuses solely on regional NPT universality while ignoring compliance. He encouraged political realities.
On “L.38”, he said that for Iran to attempt to assert leadership on the global stage to prevent the proliferation of ballistic missiles is the height of hypocrisy. Given Iran's own longstanding and deeply troubling record of ballistic missile proliferation in violation of multiple Security Council resolutions, it is disappointing that any country would make common cause with Tehran. For this reason, he will vote “no” on draft decision “L.38”.
The representative of Israel, delivering an explanation of vote before the vote on “L.1”, “L.2”, and “L.38”. It is regrettable that consensus is no longer achievable on “L.1” on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Israel attaches high importance to the non-proliferation regime. Nevertheless, the geopolitical situation in the Middle East with the widespread culture of non-compliance clearly demonstrates that the NPT, per se, does not provide the remedy to the region’s unique security challenges. Although Israel has its own deep reservations on the language and on modalities of this resolution, which have been voiced every year, Israel supported it in the spirit of cooperation as part of its constructive and consensus-oriented approach. It is very unfortunate that this long-standing practice was broken due to one-sided action by the Arab Group, which embarked on a process that altered the status quo and forced Israel to dissociate itself with the draft resolution.
Concerning “L.38”, he said it was a baffling situation whereby Iran sponsors a draft on missile when it is a violator of the NPT, the IAEA, and several Security Council resolutions on missile proliferations, of rockets, weapons of mass destruction, and nuclear-weapon-capable warheads. So, Israel asked for a vote on this draft decision to “stop the hypocrisy”.
The representative of the Russian Federation, explaining his position on the resolution entitled “Steps to Building a common roadmap towards a world without nuclear weapons” (document A/C.1/77/L.61), said the sponsors of this draft were not able to achieve the goal they set for themselves, namely, to propose an effective and yet realistic road map to advance towards a world free of nuclear weapons. He fundamentally disagreed with the draft’s approach and cannot support it. Instead of analyzing the experience of the tenth Review Conference of the NPT and creatively rethinking it, the sponsors essentially are proposing approval of the very same document. It borrows entire passages from it, and those are the most controversial and most politicized passages. This provocative approach is deeply troubling. There are clearly divisive provisions, poorly formulated, lacking focus on transparency, verification, and humanitarian consequences. Indeed, it lacks a fundamental understanding that nuclear disarmament should take place in the context of general and complete disarmament.
He said that the topic is extremely sensitive for many countries and requires extremely careful and well calibrated treatment. For many years, these sponsors have been carefully avoiding mentioning the fact that the atomic bombing was carried out by the United States, which is the only and the first country to have used nuclear weapons in military activities. The fundamental flaws in this document far outweigh its few positive points.
The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, also explaining his position on “L.61”, said that Japan has an ulterior motive in sponsoring the draft resolution. It is outrageous that it continues to disguise itself as a victim of the Second World War, while persistently denying any sincere apology and reparations for its past history of aggression and crimes against humanity. The Korean and Asian peoples still vividly remember the immeasurable suffering inflicted on them by Japan. Japan must face up to the history, refrain from deceiving the international community and portraying itself only as an atomic bomb victim and make a heartfelt apology. He strongly urged it to refrain from pursuing the ambition of becoming a military Power. It should dismantle its offensive weapons already deployed or under development.
The representative of China drew attention to the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review that the United States published yesterday, which gave the world a clear idea of how the United States rules the world with nuclear weapons in its hands. It plays up bloc confrontations and seeks conflict. The United States strengthened the role of nuclear weapons in its doctrine and lowered the threshold for their use. This newly unveiled nuclear strategy is set to have a negative impact on global stability and security. The United States has the audacity to tailor a nuclear strategy to China. The United States should not project its hegemonic mindset onto China or onto any other country for that matter.
The representative of the United States, in a point of order, said his understanding was that this section of the meeting had to do with explanations of a vote, not with general statements directed against a particular country.
The representative of China said that his statement was made in the context of this cluster, and he does not wish his statement to be interrupted again by other countries. China is not the United States, nor will it become the United States, nor will it pursue the United States’ nuclear strategy. China has the ability and confidence to safeguard its national security interest. He urged the United States to abandon its cold war mentality and adopt a responsible nuclear policy.
The representative of the United States, again on a point of order, said that the Chinese representative should be explaining his vote, and not continue an attack on the United States, which has nothing to do with his vote.
The representative of China said that his statement is intended to show the logic behind his country’s vote. China’s nuclear strategy is stable, predictable, responsible and transparent. Its unconditional non-first use and negative security assurances policy has been his country’s contribution to the world. On resolution “L.17” on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, China endorses the Treaty, however the nuclear disarmament process contained therein is devoid of an understanding of the current security reality and he cannot accept it. On “L.61 Steps to building a common road map towards a world without nuclear weapons”, he said the draft final document of the Tenth NPT Review Conference was far from balanced and cannot be used as a basis for reference. “Cherry picking” from it is inadvisable. As a result, China will vote against “L.17” and “L.61”, including on the separate paragraphs.
The representative of Pakistan explained his vote on “L.58” on reducing nuclear danger, and “L.57” on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons. Progress on these initiatives has been stonewalled, he said, on the global and regional levels. Moreover, the initiator of these resolutions has been working to increase the readiness of its nuclear forces. The principle of non-first use is not credible during nuclear escalations. India’s reckless launch of its missiles into Pakistan is another testament to the widening divide between its words and actions. In short, Pakistan does not support these two resolutions. Regarding “L.16” on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and “L.46” on ethical imperatives for a nuclear-weapon-free world, he said that, while mindful of humanitarian consequences, the fundamental and legitimate security concerns of States relying on nuclear weapons cannot be reduced by discourse, which is why his country will abstain. On “L.22” on follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, he said that, as a whole, he is in favour, but will abstain from voting on preambular paragraph 18 and operative paragraph 2, as Pakistan has not taken part in the negotiations, due to various substantive shortcomings.
The representative of France said that her delegation will vote in favour of “L.61” as a whole but will abstain from voting on preambular paragraphs 13 and 14. These refer to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which France does not believe is complementary to nor compatible with the NPT. Another problem is the assertion that efforts should be carried out with respect to humanitarian consequences. However, nuclear disarmament cannot reject the strategic context in which the world exists.
Speaking next on behalf of the United States and the United Kingdom on “L.17” on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, she said that the best way to achieve a world without nuclear weapons is to follow a progressive approach taking into account the security environment. The Treaty ignores the context of international security and regional challenges. She will not support, nor ratify or sign the Treaty. It is not binding on her, or the other countries for whom she speaks, nor does she accept the idea that it will become common customary law. She remains committed to good-faith negotiations on effective measures, and supports the goal of a world without nuclear weapons but without diminished security for all.
The representative of India, on “L.2” concerning the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, said its focus should be limited to the region it addresses. Calling on States outside of the NPT to accede to the Treaty and accept IAEA safeguards is at odds with the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. On “L.16” regarding humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, he said India is in favour of the text, based on its serious concern for the survival of humanity. On “L.19”, Mongolia’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status, he noted the many steps taken by Mongolia to reinforce its status and negative security assurances, and he respects its choice and status.
On “L.22”, concerning the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, he said India was the only nuclear-weapon State that co-sponsored this resolution for many years. Disappointed in its substantive changes in 2017, particularly the reference to the Nuclear Weapon Convention, and because this resolution’s objective is ambiguous, India will abstain. On “L.30”, the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty resolution, he supports those countries’ sovereign rights to decide on a nuclear-weapon-free zone and will respect it.
The representative of Malaysia, on “L.61”, said his delegation is not able to support the draft as a whole. Nothing less than total elimination of nuclear weapons will suffice as a guarantee against their catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Preambular paragraph 3 does not adequately reflect the NPT as the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Preambular paragraph 5 contains no reference to the consecutive failures of the NPT Review Conferences to adopt a substantive outcome document. “Some nuclear-weapon States”, as mentioned in preambular paragraph 6, does not correctly describe the concern of non-nuclear-weapon States correctly. Preambular paragraph 11 fails to highlight the particular responsibility of nuclear-weapon States. Malaysia welcomes preambular paragraph 14 on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; however, it cannot be a panacea or remedy to the text as a whole. He cannot support operative paragraph 1, as it fails to adequately reflect the existential threat nuclear weapons pose to humanity. Operative paragraph 2 is deeply concerning as it renders all legally binding negative security assurances subject to so-called national statements of undefined nature. He cannot support operative paragraph 4, which may be misleading in the global trend on stockpiles. He is also unable to vote for operative paragraph 9, as it would endanger the NPT’s integrity without mentioning nuclear disarmament. Malaysia will abstain from voting on preambular paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 11 and operative paragraphs 1, 4 and 9, and vote against operative paragraph 2.
The representative of Iran said he will vote in favour of “L.1” on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. However, he noted that the substance of the resolution had not changed for many years due to the desire to maintain consensus. Given the inadequate attention on the issue in the two consecutive NPT Review Conferences and the frequent negative votes by the Israeli regime against the draft proposal, it is crystal clear that the situation has changed. There is no more justification, therefore, to refrain from updating the substance of the resolution. He reiterated his urge for the third year in a row for the sponsor of the resolution to delete preambular paragraph 9, which notes the peace negotiations in the Middle East, and operative paragraph 4, which notes the importance of the ongoing bilateral Middle East peace negotiations and the activities of the multilateral working group on arms control and regional security in promoting mutual confidence and security in the Middle East, including the establishment of the zone. The resolution should instead include an expression regarding Israel's ongoing defiance against the international community.
He said Iran will vote in favour of “L.2” on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East as it reflects the concern of the solid majority of States that the Israeli regime as the only non-party to the NPT in the region is the source of the nuclear proliferation there. There should be no doubt that the risk of nuclear proliferation and threat of nuclear weapons in the Middle East continue to exist as long as certain Western countries continue to appease the illicit nuclear weapons programme of the Israeli regime. Together with the regime, the United States is the main culprit for any regional insecurity in the Middle East.
The representative of Syria presented his explanation of vote regarding “L.1”, saying that the United States and Israel are obstacles to the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. The region is facing a double standard, which is not ideal for concluding such a zone. There are glaring realities in the Middle East which must be dealt with effectively. There is an enormous arsenal of nuclear and other weapons with mass destruction in Israel. It is the only party in the region to have such an arsenal at its disposal. This is why “L.1” should make it possible to counter the possession of those weapons by Israel, which threaten Arab countries.
Next, the Committee approved “L.1” by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 2 abstentions (Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania).
By the terms of the text, the General Assembly would urge all parties to take the steps required for the implementation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and call on all countries of the region to agree to place all their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards.
The representatives of Egypt, Sierra Leone, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria raised points of order related to technical issues with the voting process.
The Committee then turned to draft resolution “L.2”, on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
Prior to voting on the text as a whole, it took a recorded vote on preambular paragraph 5, which would have the Assembly recall the decision adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and call on all States not yet party to the Treaty to accede to it at the earliest date, particularly those that operate unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.
By a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 4 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan), with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, Côte d’Ivoire, Georgia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, United States), it decided to retain preambular paragraph 5.
Then, by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 4 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan), with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, Côte d’Ivoire, Georgia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, United States), it retained preambular paragraph 6.
By its terms, the Assembly would call on those remaining States not party to the Treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities.
The Committee approved “L.2” as a whole by a recorded vote of 152 in favour to 5 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Palau, United States), with 24 abstentions.
The Assembly, by the text, would call on Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. It would call for immediate steps towards the full implementation of the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the NPT.
The Committee then turned to the draft resolution, entitled “Follow-up to the 2013 high-level meeting of the General Assembly on nuclear disarmament” (document A/C.1/77/L.7), by which the Assembly would call for urgent compliance with legal obligations and fulfilment of commitments undertaken on nuclear disarmament. Also by the text, it would call for the urgent commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on effective nuclear disarmament measures to achieve the total elimination of nuclear weapons, including, in particular, a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons.
Before taking action on the draft as a whole, the Committee retained preambular paragraph 6 by a recorded vote of 141 in favour, 3 against (Israel, Republic of Korea, United States), with 26 abstentions.
By its terms, the Assembly would support the speedy establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
The Committee retained preambular paragraph 12 by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 17 against, with 23 abstentions, by which the Assembly would negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading to their total elimination.
Preambular paragraph 14 was retained by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 36 against, with 16 abstentions.
It states that improvements in existing nuclear weapons and the development of new types violate States’ legal obligations on nuclear disarmament and contravene the negative security assurances provided by the nuclear-weapon States.
The Committee then approved the draft resolution as a whole by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 34 against, with 9 abstentions (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Georgia, Japan, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Ukraine).
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved draft resolution “L.13” on the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), by which the Assembly would encourage States parties to Additional Protocols I and II to the Treaty to review their interpretive declarations in line with the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, reaffirming the legitimate interests of the States that comprise the nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region in receiving full and unequivocal security assurances from the nuclear-weapon States.
The Committee next approved, by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 12 against, with 31 abstentions, the draft resolution “L.16” on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, by which it asked the Assembly to call on all States to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, their proliferation, and to achieve nuclear disarmament, as well as urge them to eliminate the threat of these weapons of mass destruction.
It approved, by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 43 against, with 14 abstentions, “L.17”, on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, by which the Assembly would call on all States that have not yet done so to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to the Treaty, and on States in a position to do so to promote adherence to the Treaty.
The representative of Chad raised a point of order indicating that he had not co-sponsored “L.17”.
Acting without a vote, the Committee then approved “L.19” on Mongolia’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status, by which the Assembly would invite Member States to cooperate with Mongolia to consolidate and strengthen its independence, as well as its nuclear-weapon-free status.
Next, the Committee considered the draft resolution “Follow up to the advisory opinion of the international Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” (document A/C.1/77/L.22), by which the Assembly would call on all States to immediately engage in multilateral negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, including under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Before taking action on that draft, the Committee, by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (North Macedonia, Russian Federation, United States), with 29 abstentions, retained preambular paragraph 10, which notes continued efforts towards nuclear disarmament, including through the Secretary-General’s Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament.
It also approved, by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 38 against, with 12 abstentions, preambular paragraph 18, which says that the Treaty contributes to achieving the objective of a legally binding prohibition on developing and the threat or use of nuclear weapon and their destruction under effective international control.
By a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 38 against, with 11 abstentions, the Committee retained operative paragraph 2, by which the Assembly would call on all States to immediately engage in multilateral negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, including under the Treaty.
The Committee approved “L.22” as a whole by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 35 against, with 13 abstentions.
The Committee then approved the draft decision on nuclear disarmament verification, “L.26”, by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Iran, Syria), by which the Assembly would recall a spate of related resolutions and note that the group of governmental experts to further consider nuclear disarmament verification issues has commenced its work. It would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.
It next approved the draft resolution “L.29” on The Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation by a recorded vote of 170 in favour to 1 against (Iran), with 10 abstentions (Algeria, China, Cuba, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, United Arab Emirates), by which the Assembly would invite all States that have not yet subscribed to the Code, in particular those possessing space launch vehicles and ballistic missile capabilities, and those developing corresponding national programmes, to do so. It would encourage States that have already subscribed to the Code to explore further ways and means to deal effectively with the problem of the proliferation of ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction.
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty “L.30”, by which the Assembly would call on African States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as possible. It would call on those nuclear-weapon States that have not yet ratified the Protocols to the Treaty that concern them to do so as soon as possible, and upon the States contemplated in Protocol III to ensure the speedy application of the Treaty to territories for which they are, de jure or de facto, internationally responsible and which lie within the limits of the geographical zone established in the Treaty.
The Committee then approved the draft resolution on negative security assurances, “L.36” by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to none against, with 64 abstentions.
By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
The Committee then took up the draft decision, entitled “Missiles” (document A/C.1/77/L.38), by which the Assembly would include the sub-item missiles under the provisional agenda of its seventy-ninth session under the theme of general and complete disarmament.
The Committee approved “L.38” by a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 5 against (Iceland, Israel, Palau, Ukraine, United States), with 12 abstentions.
The Committee then took up the draft resolution, entitled Nuclear Disarmament” (document A/C.1/77/L.42), by which the Assembly would urge nuclear-weapon States to stop qualitative improvement and development of nuclear warheads, deactivate and reduce their nuclear weapons, and agree to a no-first use legally binding instrument. Among its other provisions, the text calls for the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Prior to approving the draft as a whole, the Committee retained preambular paragraph 32 by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to 41 against, with 13 abstentions.
By its terms, the Assembly would welcome the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
The Committee next voted to retain operative paragraph 16, by 152 in favour to 2 against (North Macedonia, Pakistan), with 12 abstentions, by which the Assembly would call for the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Next, the Committee approved operative paragraph 19 by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 1 against (India), with 16 abstentions, by which the Assembly would call for the early entry into force, universalization, and strict observance of the CTBT.
The Committee approved “L.42” as a whole by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 42 against, with 20 abstentions.
The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the eleventh Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT and its Preparatory Committee, “L.45/Rev.1”, by a recorded vote of 175 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (India, Israel, Pakistan).
According to the draft, the Assembly would note the decision of the Parties to the NPT to hold the first session of the Preparatory Committee in Vienna from 31 July to 11 August 2023.
Then, the Committee took up the draft resolution “Ethical imperatives for a nuclear-weapon-free world” (document A/C.1/77/L.46), by which it would call on States to acknowledge the catastrophic humanitarian consequences posed by nuclear weapon detonations and would declare that the global threat of nuclear weapons must be eliminated.
Prior to approving the draft as a whole, the Committee retained preambular paragraph 11 by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 39 against, with 13 abstentions. By its terms, the Assembly would recall the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which acknowledges the ethical imperatives of nuclear disarmament.
The Committee approved “L.46” as a whole by a recorded vote of 131 in favour to 37 against, with 13 abstentions.
Acting without a vote it approved the draft resolution “Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia” (document A/C.1/77/L.49).
It would, by its terms, have the Assembly welcome the Treaty and its Protocol, by which the Central Asian States are obligated to strengthen nuclear security, and prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials and counter nuclear terrorism in the region.
Hereafter, the Committee took up the draft resolution, entitled “Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (document A/C.1/77/L.52), by which the Assembly would urge all States not to carry out nuclear-weapon test explosions, maintain their moratoriums, and condemn the six nuclear tests of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It would also urge States that have not done so to sign and ratify the Treaty.
Prior to approving the draft as a whole, the Committee retained preambular paragraph 7, by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria).
By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the vital importance of the entry into force of the Test-Ban Treaty as a core element of the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, including specific actions to be taken in support of its entry into force.
The Committee next turned to preambular paragraph 8 of the text, by which the Assembly would recall the Final Declaration adopted by the twelfth Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Test-Ban Treaty, as well as the joint statement by the Friends of the Treaty.
The Committee retained preambular paragraph 8 by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India), with 10 abstentions (Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria).
Operative paragraph 1 was retained by a separate recorded vote of 163 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria).
By its terms, the Assembly would stress the vital importance of signing and ratifying the Treaty without delay and without conditions to achieve its earliest entry into force.
The Committee retained the operative paragraph 5 by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 1 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria) abstentions.
By its terms, the Assembly would condemn the six nuclear tests conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and call on that country to abandon its nuclear weapons programme.
The Committee retained the operative paragraph 6 by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria).
According to that provision, the Assembly would urge all States to sign and ratify the Treaty, particularly those whose ratification is needed for its entry into force.
The Committee approved “L.52” as a whole, by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to 1 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), with 5 abstentions (India, Mauritius, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria).
The Committee next considered draft resolution “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons” (document A/C.1/77/L.57), by which the Assembly would reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach an agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
By a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 50 against, with 14 abstentions, the Committee approved “L.57” as a whole.
Next, the Committee considered the draft resolution, entitled “Reducing nuclear danger” (document A/C.1/77/L.58). It would have the Assembly call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risk of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons, including through de-alerting and de-targeting nuclear weapons.
The Committee approved “L.58” as a whole by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 49 against, with 13 abstentions.
The representative of Belarus, in a point of order, said he had wanted to abstain, but instead voted in favour of the draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger “L.58”. The Chair would note that in the record.
When the meeting continued past 6 p.m., after the interpreters had left, the representative of Equatorial Guinea, on a point of order, objected to continuing in English, only. The Chair then suspended the meeting until Monday.