On ‘Brink of Third World War’, with Global Order at Risk of Rupture, Diplomats Must Reignite Torch of Peace, Says First Committee Chair
Delegations Send 74 Texts Requiring 128 Separate Votes to General Assembly
The world is “on the brink of a third world war”, the Chairman of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) said today upon conclusion of the body’s work for the session, reminding diplomats that they are, first and foremost, men and women of peace and pleading with them to “reignite the torch”.
The global order is at risk of rupture with international security at a low point in history, Committee Chair, Peter Mohan Maithri Pieris of Sri Lanka said. Crises threaten the lives of millions, with several regional conflicts and heightened tensions eroding international cooperation. The First Committee, for its part, played a critical role and lived up to its time-honoured reputation, proving its relevance.
Significant progress was made on all issues, with a particular focus on nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, outer space security, conventional weapons and cybersecurity. In the span of five weeks, 148 delegations spoke in the general debate, intervened 365 times during thematic debates and exercised more than 134 rights of reply, not counting second ones. In total, 74 texts were forwarded to the General Assembly for adoption, requiring 128 separate votes.
On this last day of the seventy-seventh session, the Committee approved 13 draft resolutions and one decision. The focus was on the United Nations disarmament machinery, in particular, the decades-long paralysis in the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament, which dominated proceedings during action on draft resolution “L.25”, along with a related text, “L.47”.
By “L.25”, on the Report of the Conference on Disarmament, the General Assembly would recognize the need for the Conference to conduct multilateral negotiations with the aim of reaching agreement on concrete issues and emphasize the importance of effective multilateralism in the context of the changing international climate.
The Assembly would call on the Conference to intensify consultations and explore possibilities for overcoming its ongoing deadlock of two decades by adopting and implementing a balanced and comprehensive programme of work at the earliest possible date during its 2023 session, bearing in mind the decision on the programme adopted on 29 May 2009, as well as other relevant proposals.
Draft resolution “L.25” required three separate votes.
Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, the Russian Federation delegation tabled an oral amendment to operative paragraph 5, which, in its original form “takes note of other discussions held in the course of the 2022 session”. The amendment by the Russian Federation would add words so that that the provision would read: “takes note of other discussions on the agenda items of the Conference on Disarmament held in the course of the 2022 session”.
The amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 30 in favour to 57 against, with 61 abstentions. The Committee went on to retain the draft’s original operative paragraph 5, by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 6 against (Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, South Africa, Syria) with 46 abstentions.
Turning its consideration to the remaining draft resolution in its cluster on nuclear weapons, the Committee considered a text “L.47”, sponsored by Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. It approved “L.47” as a whole by a recorded vote of 169 in favour to 3 against (China, Iran, Pakistan), with 7 abstentions (Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Israel, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria).
Prior to the draft’s approval as a whole, 6 separate recorded votes were taken, including on an amendment tabled by the delegation of Iran to operative paragraph 1, by which the provision would read: Urges the Conference on Disarmament to immediately commence negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices on the basis of document CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein “taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives”.
The amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 34 in favour to 49 against, with 59 abstentions. Operative paragraph 1 urging the Conference to immediately commence those negotiations was then approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 3 against (China, Pakistan, Russian Federation), with 10 abstentions (Belarus, Bolivia, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Nicaragua, Syria).
The Committee retained preambular paragraph 3 by a recorded vote of 155 in favour to 1 against (Pakistan), with 9 abstentions (China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Iran, Israel, Russian Federation, Serbia, Sudan, Syria), expressing grave concern by the years of stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament and looking forward to it again fulfilling its mandate.
Next, it approved preambular paragraph 6 of “L.47” by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 2 against (China, Pakistan), with 7 abstentions (Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Israel, Nicaragua, Syria). By its terms, the Assembly would welcome the declared voluntary moratoria by some nuclear-weapon States on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons as an important step before the entry into force of a multilateral and verifiable treaty.
Operative paragraph 2 calling on Member States to make innovative contributions in all appropriate formal and informal forums for facilitating those negotiations was approved by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 3 against (China, Pakistan, Russian Federation, with 8 abstentions (Belarus, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Nicaragua, Syria).
The draft resolution’s operative paragraph 3, which would call on State possessors of nuclear weapons to declare and uphold voluntary moratoria on the fissile material production, was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 9 against (Algeria, China, Egypt, India, Jordan, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tunisia), with 17 abstentions.
Acting without a vote today, the Committee approved a draft decision, on stability in South-Eastern Europe (“L.12”), and nine draft resolutions, on: security in the Mediterranean region (“L.24”), regional disarmament (“L.33”), confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context (“L.34”), convening the fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament (“L.6”), United Nations Regional Centres for peace and disarmament (“L.9”), report of the Disarmament Commission (“L.21”), United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on security questions in Central Africa (“L.28”), Regional Centre in Africa (“L.31”), Regional centre in Asia and the Pacific (“L.37”) and the Regional Centre in Latin America and the Caribbean (“L.44”). The Committee also approved its programme of work for its 2023 session.
Speaking on the cluster on regional disarmament and security were representatives of the Russian Federation, Israel, India, Iran and Canada.
Introducing drafts, delivering statements and explanations of position on the clusters on disarmament machinery and nuclear weapons were representatives of Cameroon (on behalf of Central Africa), Ecuador, Brazil, Egypt, Russian Federation, Iran, Canada (also on behalf of New Zealand and Norway), Pakistan, United States, South Africa, Ukraine, China, France (also on behalf of the United Kingdom and the United States) Syria, Cuba, Indonesia, India, Austria, New Zealand, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Algeria, Switzerland, Israel, Ireland, Malaysia, Argentina and the European Union, in its capacity as observer.
The representative of the Russian Federation exercised the right of reply.
Along with the Chairman, closing statements were delivered by representatives of Kazakhstan, Egypt, India, China and Brazil.
Regional Disarmament and Security
The Committee first approved a draft decision, entitled “Maintenance of international security — good-neighbourliness, stability and development in South-Eastern Europe” (document A/C.1/77/L.12), without vote, by which the General Assembly would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its seventy-ninth session an item by the same name.
Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution, entitled “Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region” (document A/C.1/77/L.24). By its provisions, the Assembly would call on all Mediterranean countries to adhere to the relevant multilaterally negotiated legal instruments on disarmament and non-proliferation, creating necessary conditions to strengthen regional peace and cooperation. It would also encourage regional States to strengthen confidence-building measures by promoting openness and transparency on military matters and encourage the Mediterranean region to cooperate in combatting terrorism.
Prior to taking action on the draft as a whole, the Committee retained operative paragraph 2 by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with no abstentions, by which the Assembly would invite Mediterranean countries to eliminate all causes of regional tensions, to promote lasting solutions, ensuring the withdrawal of foreign forces of occupation and respecting the right of peoples to self-determination.
The Committee also retained operative paragraph 5 by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with no abstentions. Among its terms, the Assembly would call on all countries in the region to adhere to legal instruments related to disarmament and non-proliferation, thus creating conditions necessary for strengthening regional peace and cooperation.
The Committee approved “L.24” as a whole by a recorded vote of 172 in favour, to none against, with 2 abstentions (Israel, United States).
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution, entitled “Regional disarmament” (document A/C.1/77/L.33), by which the Assembly would call on States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels and welcome efforts towards those ends.
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution entitled “Confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context” (document A/C.1/77/L.34), by which the Assembly, concerned that the continuation of disputes among States may contribute to an arms race and endanger the international community’s efforts to promote arms control and disarmament, would call on States to refrain from the use or threat of use of force in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
Next, it took up the draft resolution entitled “Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels” (document A/C.1/77/L.35), by which the Assembly, believing that the important objective of arms control should be to prevent the possibility of military attacks launched by surprise and to avoid aggression, would decide to give urgent consideration to the issues involved in conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels.
By a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 2 against (India, Russian Federation), with 1 abstention (Poland), it retained preambular paragraph 7, which notes with particular interest the initiatives taken in different regions of the world and the proposals for conventional arms control made in the context of South Asia.
By a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 1 against (India) with 49 abstentions, it retained operative paragraph 2, which would have the Assembly request the Conference on Disarmament to consider formulating principles that can serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control.
By a recorded vote of 174 in favour to 1 against (India), with 1 abstention (Russian Federation), it approved “L.35” as a whole.
The representative of the Russian Federation, referring to “L.35”, said that his delegation abstained on preambular paragraph 7 as it mentions the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, concluded in 1999, which has long since become irrelevant. It also abstained on operative paragraph 2, explaining that the Conference on Disarmament’s mandate is linked to legally binding documents, not the formulation of general principles. The Disarmament Commission would be a more appropriate venue, he added.
The representative of Israel said that “L.24” fails to reflect the reality in the Middle East. In particular, operative paragraph 2 is misleading, with no mention of actions undertaken by Iran, Syria or radical and non-State actors. He added that operative paragraph 5 should have given attention to a serious lack of compliance, especially in the Middle East.
The representative of India said that his delegation voted against “L.35” and operative paragraph 2, emphasizing that conventional arms control is a global issue that should not be pursued in the regional or subregional context.
The representative of Iran said that “L.24” is missing a reference to the danger posed by the Israeli regime. He added that the title and scope of “L.24” is the Mediterranean region, not the Middle East. The representative of the Israeli regime seems to be confusing these two geographical terms, he added.
The Chair, noting this was the last Committee meeting, and that proposals remained under thematic Clusters 7 and 1, proposed that it take these up in a consolidated manner, with an opportunity to group together general statements and explanations of vote prior to actual voting, and after the votes. Thereafter, it will consider the provisional draft programme of work and timetable for 2023.
The representative of Canada said his delegation would agree with the proposal, but only under the condition that it be permitted to make a general statement on Cluster 1 and an explanation of vote under Cluster 7, as it had already agreed on delivery of a joint statement with partners and needed to respond to the amendment proposed by Iran’s delegation. This would be unnecessary if Iran’s delegation withdrew its amendment.
The representative of Iran said his delegation would also need ample time to explain its position before and after voting. If Canada’s delegation can revise the text, there would be no need to vote on its amendment. He called for flexibility from that side.
United Nations Disarmament Machinery, Nuclear Weapons
The representative of the Russian Federation said that the Conference on Disarmament was a crucial negotiating platform. His country strove to ensure a good programme of work, based on the fundamental principle of consensus. To avert the stalemate, it had worked on the Biological Weapons Convention and on the China-Russian Federation proposal on the use of force in outer space. The Conference’s positive steps were wasted on Western States, by their unprecedented anti-Russian Federation campaign. Western States held the Conference hostage for their political goals, in yet another example of their unwillingness to listen and their “if you are not with us, you are against us” principle.
Those countries, he went on, violated rules of procedure and consensus, and manipulated the Conference, including at the 3 March meeting on Ukraine. The purely technical consensus outcome was now being undermined by Western States with their draft resolution “L.25”. The Ecuadorian Chair sent it to this Committee knowing it would be put to a vote. Despite suggestions for alternative language, Western colleagues added operative paragraph 5, knowing this could not be adopted by consensus. The Russian Federation thus added an amendment to preserve the integrity of the Conference, which “takes note of other discussions on the agenda items of the Conference on Disarmament held in the course of the 2022 session”.
The representative of Canada, also speaking on behalf of Germany and the Netherlands, introduced the draft resolution entitled “Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT)” (document A/C.1/77/L.47), saying that stopping the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons is an indispensable step towards a world free of nuclear weapons. This year, the text recognizes the voluntary fissile material moratoria adopted by some nuclear-weapon States. A vast majority of Member States want treaty negotiations to begin without further delay and without preconditions. Iran, in an act of bad faith, has at the last minute circulated a hostile and unnecessary amendment to operative paragraph 1, which duplicates the amendment to preambular paragraph 4 and could be used as a stalling tactic to impede progress on treaty negotiations. “We urge you to support the resolution as tabled by the sponsors, so that we can commence treaty negotiations without further delay,” he said.
The representative of Cameroon, on behalf of Central Africa, sponsored “L.28” on regional confidence-building measures and activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee of Central African security questions. It recalls the Advisory Committee’s aim of ensuring non-proliferation and development in the Central African region, and mentions the different preventive, legal, and judicial measures taken to that end. Moreover, the draft lays out recommendations, including establishing sub-committees, and welcomes dialogue to allow for political and social forces to cooperate. A reconciliation of a regional peace agreement was concluded, noting humanitarian concerns, as well as displaced persons and increased inter-community conflicts. With today’s resolution, the Assembly would support efforts aimed at promoting regional confidence-building measures, mitigating conflict, and ensuring peace, sustainability, and development. He hoped it would be adopted by consensus.
The representative of Ecuador introduced “L.25” on the Conference on Disarmament. The proposal requests the Secretary-General to ensure proper administrative support for the Conference. As its Chair, Ecuador resumed responsibilities of facilitating “L.25”. He reiterated that the text reflects consensus of previous sessions and developments in Geneva. With the most minimal reference in operative paragraph 5 – “takes note of discussions held in the 2022 session” – consensus is guaranteed, despite polarized discussions. Ecuador acted in good faith to ensure an inclusive and transparent process, facilitating consensus in every possible way. In his national capacity, he said he remains critical of the Conference’s paralysis and shares the common understanding about the importance to discuss contemporary challenges in the Conference. He hopes Member States will approve the draft without a vote.
The representative of the European Union, making a general statement on “L.25”, expressed concern that the Conference on Disarmament remains deadlocked. It is high time that the Conference becomes the negotiating forum it once was, he said, calling for political leadership and reflection on how that body can be strengthened. He urged States to facilitate work on a long-overdue fissile material treaty and the appointment of a special coordinator to lead discussion on enlarging the 65‑member body. Noting the security challenges created by the Russian Federation’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, he regretted that the Conference had failed to reach consensus on its report this year.
The representative of Brazil, on “L.25”, said there is an urgent need to rethink the Conference’s working methods and composition. He shares frustrations about its lack of results and endless procedural haggling, adding, however, that States must not become despondent or “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. The Conference’s report should not be put to a vote, he said, calling on States not to act out of desperation or take actions that will have repercussions on the Conference in the future. Brazil will vote in favour of “L.25”.
The representative of Egypt, noting that his country is the incoming Chair of the Conference, said his delegation will vote in favour of “L.25” as a whole and abstain on the proposed amendment to operative paragraph 5.
The representative of the Russian Federation, clarifying his position on “L.25”, noted a number of incorrect statements made by some delegations. Noting also the outcome of work against a difficult backdrop, he cited the proposed oral amendment to operative paragraph 5, presented by his delegation, stating it had done all it could to maintain consensus on the Conference’s report. The meeting on 3 March on Ukraine violated the Conference’s rules of procedure. His delegation would vote against operative paragraph 5 in its current state, adding that the manner in which Ecuador, the sponsor, conducted negotiations was unhelpful and that any consequences vis-à-vis the work of the Conference will fall squarely on that country’s shoulders.
The representative of Iran, on “L.47”, said that over the past few years, a proposal for a treaty banning fissile material for nuclear weapons has undergone several modifications, with some key provisions from previous documents now lost. The last round of consultations planned for 13 October had been cancelled. The authors of the proposal communicated that they will not be making further edits, so the version on e‑delegate was final. He underlined that the delegation of Canada was not correct on the timing of the proposal. Iran’s delegation suggests adding a phrase to operative paragraph 1. He calls on nuclear‑ and non-nuclear-weapon States and Canada to support the amendment.
The representative of Canada, also speaking on behalf of New Zealand and Norway, addressed the resolution on the report of the Conference on Disarmament. His delegation would vote “no” on the Russian Federation’s amendment to operative paragraph 5, as the resolution was proposed at the last minute without consultation and adequate explanation. While the delegation would have been ready to join consensus, it now must abstain. The report and resolution are disappointing, and the Conference has once again failed its mandate. The report says little more than “we met this year, and we decided to meet again next year”. There is no mention of discussions, including on the Russian Federation’s war of aggression on Ukraine or threat of use of nuclear weapons. One delegation wanted to erase the 3 March meeting from the record. The resolution on the report is almost devoid of meaningful content.
The representative of Pakistan said that “L.47” and the amendment to operative paragraph 1 by Iran’s delegation is an improvement to the proposal. However, there are fundamental problems with the paragraphs and the draft resolution as a whole, owing to the one-sided obsession with the fissile material cut-off and a previous Conference on Disarmament document CD1299 which has far outlived its utility or relevance. The proposed amendment, while a step in the right direction, does not address those issues. His delegation’s position on the amendment and operative paragraph is without prejudice to its clear opposition to the premise of a fissile material cut-off or the relevance of CD1299. Pakistan will vote against “L.47” and preambular paragraph 3.
The representative of the United States, addressing the oral amendment to operative paragraph 5 of “L.25”, expressed regret that the process is happening at all. Ecuador, as a resolution sponsor, made heroic efforts, and delegations had every opportunity to make proposals. However, the Russian Federation chose to make a last-minute oral amendment that it knew would be problematic. When the United States’ delegation offered an amendment to that amendment, the Russian Federation made clear it would block any reference to other discussions. The United States withdrew its amendment to end this “one‑upmanship”. He stressed that the Russian Federation’s original amendment is a continuation of its denial of the legitimacy of the Conference’s formal plenary session on 3 March, during which multiple delegations addressed its invasion of Ukraine. He categorically rejected the inference that any one State can dictate what is and is not relevant to the work of the Conference. He urged States to reject the amendment.
The Chair reminded delegates to restrict observations to explanations after the vote or to the rights of reply, due to time concerns. It was in everybody’s interest to conclude the Committee’s proceedings today, he said.
The representative of South Africa expressed her disappointment that her delegation’s input on “L.47” on a fissile material cut-off treaty was not discussed. The consultations should have been more inclusive, and another round would have been beneficial. Disarmament was a moral and ethical imperative, but the world was moving further away from total nuclear disarmament. Rather than strengthening peace and security, the collective well-being of people was jeopardized. Nuclear-weapon States said they would accomplish the elimination of those weapons, under article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, they were just selectively emphasizing parts of the Treaty. A treaty on banning fissile material should improve the climate of trust between States and boost confidence under non-nuclear-weapon States that real steps were taken. She hoped that negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament would continue. South Africa will vote in favour of “L.47”.
The representative of Ukraine said that he would vote against the Russian Federation’s oral amendment to operative paragraph 5 of “L.25”. The Russian Federation once again showed its disrespect and abuse, as it has done all throughout the Conference on Disarmament’s 2022 work. For Ukraine, this resolution was a huge disappointment, as it did not reflect important discussions held by the Conference this year, including the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine, but also gender and cyber security. This amendment was another attempt to restrict the Conference’s work. Ukraine was not in a position to support the draft and called on others to follow suit.
The representative of Brazil, on “L.47”, said that the issue of banning fissile material has not been settled over the course of 3 decades. There is currently enough plutonium and uranium in the world for 100,000 nuclear devices, which is nine times more than the existing number of warheads. This material is not evenly distributed, with obvious military and strategic implications. Future production must also be addressed so as not to aggravate the problem. Brazil proposed a framework treaty on fissile material, with one protocol on stockpiling and one on future production. Brazil would vote in favour of “L.47”, of the view that this serious issue should be kept high on the disarmament agenda. He was confident that the world could move towards a comprehensive agreement that addressed both stockpiles and future production.
The representative of China, explaining his vote on “L.25”, said that as the first rotating Chair of the Conference on Disarmament in 2022, China had pushed the work forward, including on a programme of work. For well-known reasons, the Conference was extremely impacted by the international security situation. However, the subsidiary bodies pressed ahead, showing that Member States took the Conference’s work seriously and that the Conference’s machinery was practical and useful. Its difficulties were not to be blamed on the machinery itself, he said, underlining that each Member State has its own specific positions, based on national circumstances and their relations with other States. Nothing can replace the Conference. If substantive work can be carried out, on the basis of respect for all States’ concerns, the Conference can play its role. China hopes that the annual report will be approved by consensus, as every year, and he will support “L.25” as a whole as well as the Russian amendment to operative paragraph 5.
The representative of France, speaking also on behalf of the United Kingdom and the United States, said that as nuclear-weapon States, the three countries are committed to a gradual approach to nuclear disarmament in a way that takes into consideration the prevailing security environment and global stability. The goal of a world without nuclear weapons cannot be achieved without an end to the production of fissile material for nuclear explosive devices. The three countries, which maintain a voluntary moratorium on fissile material production, will vote in favour of “L.47”, she said, expressing deep regret that Iran, without consultations, has tabled a hostile amendment.
The representative of Syria, speaking on “L.25”, underscored the pivotal role of the Conference on Disarmament and said that attempts to turn that body into a place to score political points will only aggravate its problems and harm its mandate. Syria will support the Russian Federation’s proposed amendment to operative paragraph 5 as it believes it will steer the text away from political “wheeling and dealing”.
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution, entitled “Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament” (document A/C.1/77/L.6), the draft resolution, entitled “United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament” (document A/C.1/77/L.9) and the draft resolution, entitled “Report of the Disarmament Commission” (document A/C.1/77/L.21).
Next, it took up the draft resolution entitled “Report of the Conference on Disarmament” (document A/C.1/77/L.25), which reaffirms the Conference as the single multilateral negotiating forum of the international community.
By a recorded vote of 57 against to 30 in favour, with 61 abstentions, the Committee rejected the Russian Federation’s amendment to operative paragraph 5.
By a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 6 against (Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, South Africa, Syria) with 46 abstentions, it retained operative paragraph 5, by which the Assembly would take note of other discussions held in the course of the Conference’s 2022 session.
By a recorded vote of 157 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions, it approved “L.25” as a whole. Further to the text, the Assembly would call on the Conference to intensify consultations and explore possibilities for overcoming its ongoing deadlock of two decades by adopting and implementing a balanced and comprehensive programme of work at the earliest possible date during its 2023 session, bearing in mind the decision on the programme of work adopted by the Conference on 29 May 2009, as well as other relevant present, past and future proposals.
The Assembly would take into account the calls by Ministers for Foreign Affairs and other high-level officials, concerned about the ongoing impasse, for greater flexibility with respect to commencing the substantive work of the Conference without further delay.
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution “Regional confidence-building measures: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa” as orally revised (document A/C.1/77/L.28). Among its terms, the Assembly would appeal to the international community to support States in implementing disarmament, demobilization and integration programmes, taking into consideration the needs of women and children associated with former combatants. It would reaffirm the importance of disarmament and arms control in Central Africa, encourage Member States to provide assistance to Arms Trade Treaty States parties of the Standing Advisory Committee and encourage those that haven’t done so to ratify the Treaty.
Also acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa” (document A/C.1/77/L.31), by which the Assembly would call upon Member States and other stakeholders to further enable the Regional Centre to provide adequate assistance to African Member States on arms control and disarmament from a human security perspective, notably on violent extremism, youth and women, peace and security. Moreover, it would urge all States and organization to make voluntary contributions to enable the Centre to meet the African States’ needs and also urge them, particularly African Union Member States, to make voluntary contributions to the Centre’s trust fund.
It approved the draft on the “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific” (document A/C.1/77/L.37), without a vote, by which the Assembly would appeal to Member States, in particular those within the Asia-Pacific region, as well as international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to strengthen the Regional Centre.
Also without a vote, the Committee approved the text on the “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean” (document A/C.1/77/L.44), by which the Assembly would invite States of the region to take part in the Centre’s activities, to maximize the Centre’s potential in meeting the current challenges with a view to fulfilling the Charter’s aims in the areas of peace, disarmament and development. It would also encourage the Centre to further develop activities and support Member States with the international implementation of relevant instruments, among them, the Programme of Action on the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons and the Arms Trade Treaty.
The Committee then took up the draft resolution, entitled “Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” (document A/77/C.1/L.47).
It first considered the delegation of Iran’s amendment, “L.77” to operative paragraph 1 of “L.47”.
Operative paragraph 1 in its original form reads: Urges the Conference on Disarmament to immediately commence negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices on the basis of document CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein.
The amendment by Iran’s delegation would add to the end of the last sentence of operative paragraph 1 the following words: taking into consideration nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives.
By a recorded vote of 34 in favour to 49 against, with 59 abstentions, the Committee rejected the amendment “L.77”.
Next, by a recorded vote of 155 in favour to 1 against (Pakistan), with 9 abstentions (China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Iran, Israel, Russian Federation, Serbia, Sudan, Syria), the Committee retained preambular paragraph 3, by which the Assembly would express grave concern by the years of stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament and look forward to it again fulfilling its mandate.
By a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 2 against (China, Pakistan), with 7 abstentions (Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Israel, Nicaragua, Syria), it retained preambular paragraph 6, by which the Assembly would welcome the declared voluntary moratoria by some nuclear-weapon States on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons as an important interim step before a verifiable treaty banning the production of that material.
By a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 3 against (China, Pakistan, Russian Federation), with 10 abstentions (Belarus, Bolivia, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Nicaragua, Syria), it retained operative paragraph 1, which would urge the Conference to immediately commence negotiations on the treaty banning fissile material production for nuclear weapons on the basis of document CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein.
By a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 3 against (China, Pakistan, Russian Federation), with 8 abstentions (Belarus, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Nicaragua, Syria), it retained operative paragraph 2, which would call on Member States to make innovative contributions in all appropriate formal and informal forums for facilitating those negotiations.
By a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 9 against (Algeria, China, Egypt, India, Jordan, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tunisia), with 17 abstentions, it retained operative paragraph 3, which would call on States that possess nuclear weapons to declare and uphold voluntary moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices.
The Committee then approved “L.47” as a whole by a recorded vote of 169 in favour to 3 against (China, Iran, Pakistan), with 7 abstentions (Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Israel, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria).
The representative of Cuba said her delegation voted in favour of “L.25” given its commitment to the only body with a negotiating mandate for the disarmament at the United Nations. At least the Conference took a small step forward in establishing various subsidiary bodies. However, that unity was not preserved in presenting “L.25”, which had not won consensus, owing to inclusion of text that ignored the Conference’s rules and practices. The draft should never have been “contaminated” with controversial elements. Her delegation voted against operative paragraph 5. She regretted that the Russian Federation’s amendment was not adopted. The loss of consensus does not augur well for work in 2023. Her delegation abstained on “L.47” as the Conference is the only multilateral negotiating forum in disarmament. She believed the Conference can negotiate a legally binding instrument preventing an arms race in outer space and banning the production of fissile material.
The representative of Indonesia, on “L.25”, said consensus has become a “luxury” in the Committee, regretting that the adoption process “shows a profound lack of trust and political will”. Certain parties have tried to dilute the Conference on Disarmament mandate. She called for solidarity and dialogue, noting that her delegation abstained on operative paragraph 5 while voting in favour of the draft as a whole. Her delegation supported “L.47” as a whole and its paragraphs and called for the development of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for military purposes. However, she did not support the moratorium.
The representative of India regretted the loss of consensus in the Conference but voted in favour of “L.25”. Similarly, he voted in favour of “L.47”, calling for negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. However, India does not support the establishment of a moratorium on fissile material, which will weaken the will to negotiate such a treaty.
The representative of Austria cited the two-decade stalemate of the Conference, and tendencies that undermine the disarmament regime. The report lacks any substance, including regarding the Russian Federation war in Ukraine. He abstained on “L.25” and hoped Member States would show political will and release text from being held hostage for political purposes.
The representative of Iran, on “L.47”, thanked those delegations that had supported its amendment, adding that it had not been able to vote in favour of the text as a whole, given that its main sponsors had refused any proposal for rebalancing it. He regretted that “L.25” was no longer approved by consensus. His delegation had been prepared to avoid including any controversial language. However, operative paragraph 5 was included despite the objection of his and other delegations, and it added no value to the text. Citing certain behaviours that violated the rules of procedure, his delegation was compelled to abstain.
The representative of Egypt said that while he shared the goals of “L.47”, his delegation voted against operative paragraph 3, abstained on operative paragraphs 1 and 2 and on the resolution as a whole and voted in favour of preambular paragraphs 3 and 6.
He said there is no mention of negotiating existing stockpiles, which means the treaty will not contribute to nuclear disarmament. Egypt will not accept a discriminatory treaty that does not include existing stockpiles. Moreover, the draft lacks a reference to starting negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament, based on an agreed and balanced programme of work, or even that such negotiations will take place in the Conference. Operative paragraph 3, in clear violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), uses the term “States possessing nuclear weapons”. Egypt only recognizes the five nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT, and he urges the main sponsors of the resolution to correct the term.
The representative of New Zealand, on “L.47”, said that her country is a strong supporter of a treaty banning fissile material. Such a treaty should be comprehensive, addressing both producing and stockpiling. She supports the original text being tabled, but outstanding issues related to banning fissile material should be addressed during the course of negotiations, and not before they commence. Language, such as in operative paragraph 1, which place conditionalities on a treaty’s future, will not be conducive to progress. New Zealand supports the draft as a whole, but abstained on operative paragraph 1.
The representative of Mexico said that “L.25” reflects the lack of agreement in the Conference. Every year, that body deliberates, spending financial and human resources but failing to advance disarmament. Some States prefer the status quo: paralysis. They look for rules that only support a small group or even a single delegation. Consensus has become a veto. He does not oppose the subsidiary bodies, but those mechanisms have not produced any result. The report says nothing. The Conference serves only nuclear-weapon States, which can say discussions are taking place. The Conference brings unrelated issues to the agenda, like regional issues, which only polarizes members. This paralysis is unacceptable. On “L.47”, Mexico supports the substance, but not the process, which is why it abstained on operative paragraph 1. On operative paragraph 3, he also abstained, because he does not agree with this “new category”.
The representative of Algeria, on “L.47”, said his country supports a global treaty banning fissile material, though complete nuclear disarmament remains the world’s most pressing priority. Such a treaty must facilitate non-proliferation and disarmament and should not focus only on future production, but also on pre-existing stockpiles, in line with the Shannon report. He is surprised by some “strange language” in operative paragraph 3, which would undermine the work of the NPT, the Conference on Disarmament and lead to further concerns about the resolution as a whole. It adds a new category of States, not in line with resolutions adopted by consensus for decades. Algeria does not usually vote against paragraphs in this Committee, but this year, he needed to vote against operative paragraph 3, but in favour of the draft as a whole. He hopes that the authors will return to the language of previous resolutions.
The representative of the Republic of Korea, also on behalf of Australia, said, on “L.25”, that it is deeply regrettable that it did not achieve consensus this year. She strongly believes that the Conference’s mandate should not be challenged, even under these circumstances. When that body is seriously impeded by the security situation, namely by the unjustifiable war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, it is imperative that it be revitalized to live up to the world’s standards. The countries voted in favour of the draft as a whole. She regretted the oral amendment to operative paragraph 5 added one day before. During informal meetings, States had shown good will, but this was a last-minute attempt to disregard all relevant discussions among Conference members, including on gender, cybersecurity and the war in Ukraine. As such, she voted against the Russian Federation’s amendment.
The representative of Switzerland, speaking on “L.25”, noted that the Conference on Disarmament has been unable to conduct negotiations for more than 25 years. The report, however, fails to reflect the challenges that body faces. The document is only five pages long. He urged the General Assembly to reflect on ways to strengthen the Conference.
The representative of the Russian Federation, noting that his delegation abstained on “L.47”, said that the only platform for discussion on a fissile material cut-off treaty is the Conference on Disarmament, based on a balanced programme of work. Attempts to take the discussion outside the scope of that body will only undermine work on such a treaty, he said, adding that the draft resolution in its current form will prevent a treaty from being concluded.
The representative of China voted against “L.47”. The Conference on Disarmament is the only appropriate forum for negotiating a fissile material cut-off treaty, yet the sponsors of “L.47” insisted on inserting language on a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. China has never recognized the value of such a moratorium, he said, adding that policies of some States which have declared a moratorium are hypocritical, as some still have weapons-grade material from the cold war period.
The representative of Israel, which abstained on “L.47” as a whole, said the relevance of a fissile material cut-off treaty is questionable. Such a treaty can be part of a consensually agreed nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, but the prerequisites for such a zone are far from being fulfilled, he said.
The representative of Ireland, on “L.25”, said his delegation opposed the amendment on operative paragraph 5, which represented a politicized act by the Russian Federation designed to erase an oblique reference to the Conference on Disarmament’s discussions on Ukraine. Ireland also abstained on the unprecedented vote on the resolution as whole, due to the Conference’s inability to fulfill its mandate for 25 years, with its reports taking procedural rather than a substantive form. The document does not even reflect the record number of meetings in 2022, or address the crisis of inertia. Several disarmament treaties have progressed outside Conference, undermining multilateralism. The resolution should reflect the reality of the challenges. He urged efforts to reinvigorate it.
The representative of Malaysia expressed regret that “L.25” is traditionally approved without a vote, but that this was not the case. Citing multiple proposals to operative paragraph 5, he noted that they complicated the overall text. His delegation abstained on the amendment tabled to that paragraph and would have abstained on others had they not been withdrawn, further abstaining on the paragraph itself. He called on relevant parties to engage in dialogue.
The representative of Argentina, noting his delegation’s abstention on the amendment to “L.47”, expressed concern that the proposal was not made during informal consultations, and that the wording could have affected negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, especially operative paragraph 1.
The Chair, noting that the Committee had concluded its consideration of all draft resolutions and decisions before it, approved its provisional programme of work and timetable for 2023.
Right of Reply
The representative of the Russian Federation, in exercise of the right of reply, said his delegation had been compelled to respond on numerous occasions to the inappropriate attacks on his country. The Russian Federation had made substantive remarks during the session and objected to the politization of discussions. Yet again today, allegations were made during the discussion on the Conference on Disarmament. His delegation had submitted its comments on its positions, while Western States are “doing dirty work”. As for the consensus status of “L.25”, it is obvious this might have consequences for the stability and holistic nature of the Conference. The Western countries tried to introduce to resolution elements that might undermine the basis of the Conference. Given this “alarmist, non-constructive” position, it appears the Conference is no longer a body where countries can discuss disarmament and arms control.
In violation of the Conference’s mandate, Western countries are using it for score settling, introducing their irrelevant preferences into this forum, which should focus on disarmament, he said. If this trend continues, the world is going to have a contradiction on its hands. The Conference is going from bad to worse. Those delegations have fuelled this trend for many years. This line, pursued by Western Powers, was done deliberately — they created acceptable conditions for themselves by introducing elements unacceptable to others. They have done away with the consensual status of the Conference. This is not happening in isolation. Their irresponsibility and the consequences of it are obvious to all.
Closing Remarks
Concluding the session, the Chair, PETER MOHAN MAITHRI PIERIS (Sri Lanka), noted that the Committee had finished its work in exactly five weeks, with four extra meetings, including two meetings on Diwali, with increased numbers of drafts and recorded votes and high levels of participation. After the Covid‑19 pandemic, additional meetings could not be avoided. In total, 148 delegations made statements in the general debate, there were 365 interventions during the thematic discussions, in 32 meetings of the Committee, with at least 134 rights of reply, not counting the second interventions. During the action phase, 74 draft resolutions and decisions were approved, and one was withdrawn, 28 were adopted without a vote and 47 by a recorded vote, requiring 128 separate votes in total.
The representative of Kazakhstan extended his greatest appreciation to the Chair, the Committee and the Secretariat and wished them every success in their important undertakings.
The representative of Egypt also expressed his thanks to the Committee, the Chair and the Secretariat. He said that despite great hopes that the Committee attached to the disarmament machinery, it was facing challenges. It cannot be denied that the Committee is steering away from consensual texts previously adopted without a vote. This shows the polarization between States. He appreciated support for the draft resolution on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, despite calls to undermine it. There is no disagreement in the region, except for one State. At the upcoming conference on the topic in November, there are no objections to any country’s participation. Any country that denies this is denying the truth as well as reality.
The representative of India thanked the Chair for his leadership, and the Secretariat and the Bureau for their hard work.
The representative of China noted that this session was held under the most difficult conditions, amid the pandemic and the most tumultuous international situation since the end of the cold war. Despite different desires and opinions, he affirmed that the Committee’s work was conducted in a professional manner, emphasizing the importance of the disarmament machinery.
The representative of Brazil offered congratulations to the Chair, the Committee and the Bureau.
The Chair said that since its inception, the First Committee has played a critical role in disarmament and international security. It had fulfilled its mandate and lived up to its time-honoured reputation, proving its relevance. Conflicts and crises threaten the lives of millions of people, shaking the international order, with several regional conflicts and heightened tensions eroding international cooperation. Facing daunting challenges, the Office for Disarmament Affairs has demonstrated its relevance over the past five weeks, making significant progress in addressing nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, outer space security, conventional weapons and cybersecurity.
He noted that the Committee took action on 74 proposals, amending them and establishing new ones, laying down a new direction and fresh impetus for action for international peace and security. He noted the United Nations is seen to be engaging in what is called a “dialogue of the deaf” while internecine conflicts rage. The world is in disarray. Global security is at a low ebb, and humans can exploit the crisis to their advantage. The United Nations shapes international laws, practices and norms in an impactful manner.
The global security agenda has not only widened, but it has deepened, with the world at the brink of a third world war, he said, asking: “Is that what we want? Surely not”. Those present are diplomats, but first and foremost, men and women of peace. He pleaded with them to reignite the torch of peace.