First Committee Coalesces Around UN Disarmament Machinery Drafts, But Differences Persist over ‘ICT’ Security, Regional Disarmament in Mediterranean Region

Twenty-Two More Drafts Sent to General Assembly for Adoption

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) today forwarded 21 draft resolutions and 1 draft decision to the General Assembly, including a traditional text related to regional disarmament and security in the Mediterranean region, which, despite its approval, provoked debate among some Member States.

Draft resolution “L.16”, titled “Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region”, would have the Assembly call on all countries of the Mediterranean region to adhere to relevant multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to disarmament and non-proliferation.  It would encourage the region’s States to strengthen confidence-building measures by promoting genuine openness and transparency on all military matters, and to strengthen cooperation to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations.

It was approved by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (Israel, Papua New Guinea, South Sudan, United States).

Separate recorded votes were required to retain two operative paragraphs.  By operative paragraph 2, the Assembly would invite Mediterranean countries to consolidate their efforts in order to contribute actively to eliminating all causes of tension in the region through peaceful means, thus ensuring the withdrawal of all foreign forces of occupation, among other things.  It would also invite those countries to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries of the Mediterranean and the right of peoples to self-determination.

In that connection, the Assembly would call for full adherence to the principles of non-interference, non-intervention, non-use of force or threat of use of force and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.

The fifth operative paragraph calls for the countries of the region to adhere to relevant multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to disarmament and non-proliferation, thus creating the conditions necessary for strengthening peace and cooperation in the region.

Speaking after the vote, Israel’s representative said that the second operative paragraph does not reflect the reality in the Middle East because it lacks references to, among others, the ongoing use of chemical weapons by Syria and the ongoing proliferation of missiles by Iran.  Non-compliance in the region remains a serious source of concern, he added.

Iran’s representative said the resolution aligns with calls by successive Review Conferences of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for the Israeli regime to accede without delay or precondition as a non-nuclear-weapon party to the Treaty.  His delegation, however, abstained on the resolution as a whole since it does not factually reflect the realities in the region, including the killing of Palestinians and the actions by the Israeli regime in the Gaza Strip.

The Committee also approved two competing resolutions related to ensuring security in the area of information and communications technology (ICT), over which Committee members debated the pathway to achieving that.

By a record vote of 112 in favour to 52 against, with 11 abstentions, “L.11”, titled “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security” and tabled by the Russian Federation, would have the Assembly recommend States to continue, at the Open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies 2021-2025, discussions on rules, norms and principles of responsible behaviour of States, including the need to discuss elaboration of additional legally binding obligations.

Draft resolution “L.60/Rev.1”, titled “Programme of action to advance responsible State behaviour in the use of information and communications technologies in the context of international security”, submitted by France, Colombia and the United States, would have the Assembly decide to establish a mechanism under UN auspices, upon the conclusion of the 2021-2025 Open-ended Working Group, which will be permanent, inclusive and action-oriented, with the specific objectives affirmed in Assembly resolution 77/37 and with the common elements for future regular institutional dialogue agreed by consensus in the Working Group’s 2023 annual report. 

It was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 10 against (Belarus, Burundi, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Russian Federation, Syria), with 12 abstentions.

On the penultimate day of the Committee’s session, 14 separate votes were required to approve the 22 texts in the following clusters:  Other disarmament measures and international security; regional disarmament and security; and disarmament machinery. 

The First Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, 3 November, to conclude its session.

Action, Other Disarmament Measures and International Security

The representative of the Russian Federation, in explanation of position before the vote, said his country will vote against the draft resolution, titled “Programme of action to advance responsible State behaviour in the use of information and communications technologies in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/78/L.60/Rev.1). The draft is yet another attempt by Western countries to undermine the activities of the 2021-2025 Open-Ended Working Group.  Their goal is to replace the Group with another mechanism convenient to them. “We have not received a clear answer to a simple question:  What is the real purpose of draft resolution L.60,” he said.  The cosmetic amendments made to the text do not change its unacceptable essence.  The France-sponsored draft does not contain any specific recommendations.  Moscow is ready to discuss a programme of action within the framework of the Open-Ended Working Group in accordance with its mandate and the recommendations of the annual reports.

The representative of Spain, speaking on behalf of the European Union, explained their votes against “L.11”, titled “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/78/L.11), and called on other States to follow suit.  He reiterated full and unified support for “L.13”, titled “Open-Ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies 2021-2025 established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 75/240” (document A/C.1/78/L.13).

He said that “L.11” could have better represented the “fragile consensus” achieved in the Open-Ended Working Group.  The draft fails to reference the cumulative, evolving framework for responsible State behaviour in the use of information and communications technology (ICT), resulting from more than 20 years of negotiations and repeatedly endorsed by consensus by the General Assembly.  “L.11” highlights proposals supported by a small group of States, which may hamper the Working Group’s incremental and consensus-based approach. He is concerned that the draft relies on non-consensual text, which could lead to re-interpreting the Working Group’s work and existing consensual documents.

The representative of Australia, also speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said all countries bear a responsibility to work together to manage the complex international security challenges in cyberspace and avoid conflict.  The Group is committed to act in line with a framework for responsible State behaviour in cyberspace and will continue to work constructively with all partners in the Open-Ended Working Group, to advance international cooperation and address threats to international peace and security in cyberspace. She regretted the lack of cooperation on resolution “L.11” and expressed concern that the text’s language does not reflect consensus. 

“Balance is fragile, and this resolution’s cherry-picking creates division and discord,” she said.  Given the resolution’s other controversial language which undermines the work of the Open-Ended Working Group, its hard-fought consensus progress and States’ commitment to work collectively to promote responsible behaviour in cyberspace, the Group will oppose it and preambular paragraph 3.

The representative of Iran said that his country has consistently called for the end of parallelism between the two Groups and the two resolutions.  “In our view, the Open-Ended Working Group has the most inclusive existing mechanism and possesses a clear mandate,” he said, adding that despite numerous concerns raised by his delegation during informal consultations on the draft, Iran did not receive satisfactory answers.  Tabling it is premature and could potentially disrupt the present Group’s process.

“We take note of the fact that the specific co-sponsor of the draft resolution, namely the United States, represents well-known examples of irresponsible behaviour and malicious actions in cyberspace,” he said, referring to malware attacks by the United States and its allies, including the Israeli regime, on Iran’s critical infrastructures, in 2010.  Considering this, his delegation will cast a vote against the draft proposal, he said.

The representative of Malaysia said that his country will vote in favour of both “L.11” and “L.60/Rev.1”.  The call in “L.11” for further constructive engagement in the Open-Ended Working Group’s negotiations is important.  Also pertinent is the encouragement for continued exchange of views in the regular institutional dialogue.  The text rightly recommends that relevant proposals be further developed within the Group.  Kuala Lumpur appreciates the authors’ efforts in seeking to advance the establishment of an inclusive and action-oriented mechanism under UN auspices, upon the Group’s conclusion.  Its operative paragraph 4 makes clear that the scope, structure, content and modalities of such a mechanism should be based on consensus outcomes of the Group. “L.11” and “L.60/Rev.1” do not contradict each other and may be viewed as complementary and mutually reinforcing. Malaysia also supports “L.13”.

The representative of Cuba, explaining its vote in favour of “L.13”, said she strongly valued the Open-Ended Working Group as the only means to allow equal participation of all States to transparently discuss security and ICT on an equal footing.  She stressed the need to avoid, in the Group’s forthcoming sessions, taking on board language on issues that lack international consensus, such as the notion of automatic applicability of international law on ICT. Cuba is committed to help build consensus on aspects under the Group’s mandate.

The representative of Egypt, on “L.60/Rev.1” and “L.11”, said the country is committed to all efforts regulating cyberspace and maintaining its security and stability, as well as countering threats due to the malicious use of ICT.  Efforts should be undertaken and rules developed to “prevent cyberspace from turning into a scene for an arms race or armed conflicts”.  Any future mechanism on cybersecurity must contain a distinct pillar on the implementation and operationalization of the agreed framework and strengthen capacity-building activities.  While the current text of operative paragraph 4 did not fully address the preparatory work of the future mechanisms, the language represents a significant improvement over its previous iteration.  Egypt, therefore, will support “L.60/Rev.1” and its fourth operative paragraph.  On “L.11”, he welcomed the proposal’s improvement, particularly the reference to implementation of agreed outcomes.  Egypt will therefore support it, despite concerns over the unnecessary reporting requirements the resolution might contain. It will also support “L.13” tabled by Singapore.

The representative of Nicaragua said that his country will vote in favour of “L.11” to support the Open-Ended Working Group because of its open and transparent format in which Member States can discuss all national initiatives and find common ground.  “We think that we need to have a regular mechanism for institutional dialogue,” he stressed, encouraging all delegations, in particular from developing countries, to support the text.

Turning to “L.60/Rev.1”, he said that tabling this resolution as a parallel initiative is not the right way.  “This has been imposed on delegations without bearing in mind our concerns,” he said, underscoring that this resolution undermines the efforts made in the Open-Ended Working Group and prejudices its work, as well as includes divisive elements that have not been agreed by consensus. This is why his delegation will vote against the separate paragraph and that resolution in its entirety, he said.

The representative of Syria said the Open-Ended Working Group is the best forum to respond to challenges arising from ICT.  His country supports efforts to preserve it as a central forum to that end.  Any discussion on cyberissues must be carried out within the Group, whose mandate covers all cybersecurity issues.  There are different views on an action programme.  Damascus opposes duplicating efforts at the international level. Therefore, his country will vote against “L.60/Rev.1”.

The Committee, acting without a vote, approved the draft resolution, titled “Relationship between disarmament and development” (document A/C.1/78/L.4), tabled by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

By the text, the General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to continue to take action, through appropriate organs and within available resources, to implement the Action Programme adopted on 11 September 1987 at the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development.  It would also urge the international community to devote to economic and social development part of the resources from disarmament and arms limitation agreements in order to reduce the ever-widening gap between developed and developing States.  

Turning to the draft resolution, titled “Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (document A/C.1/78/L.6), the Committee approved it without a vote.

By the text, submitted by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Assembly would call upon States to adopt unilateral, bilateral, regional, and multilateral measures to contribute to the application of scientific and technological progress within the framework of international security, disarmament and other related spheres, without detriment to the environment or its effective contribution to sustainable development. 

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution, titled “Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation” (document A/C.1/78/L.7), submitted also by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, call on States to renew and fulfil their commitments to multilateral cooperation and request States parties of relevant instruments to cooperate among themselves in resolving concerns on non-compliance and implementation and refrain from resorting to unilateral actions or unverified non-compliance accusations. 

“L.7” was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 5 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, United Kingdom, United States), with 52 abstentions.

Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution titled “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/78/L.11), tabled by the Russian Federation.

By the text, the Assembly would call upon States to further engage constructively in the negotiations during formal and intersessional meetings of the Open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies 2021–2025, which will present recommendations, adopted by consensus, to the Assembly.  It would also recommend States to continue, at the Open-ended Working Group, discussions on rules, norms and principles of responsible behaviour of States, including the need to discuss elaboration of additional legally binding obligations.

Recorded votes were requested on preambular paragraph 3 and the draft as a whole.

Preambular paragraph 3 would have the Assembly stress that it is in the interest of all States to promote the use of information and communications technologies for peaceful purposes, with the objective of shaping a community of shared future for humankind for peace, security and stability in the information space, and that States also have an interest in prevention and peaceful settlement of conflicts arising from the use of such technologies.

This provision was retained by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 51 against, with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Serbia, Singapore, South Sudan).

Then, “L.11” as a whole was approved by a record vote of 112 in favour to 52 against, with 11 abstentions.

Next, acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft decision titled “Open-ended working group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies 2021-2025 established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 75/240” (document A/C.1/78/L.13).

By the text, submitted by Singapore, the Assembly would decide to endorse the second annual progress report and convene additional intersessional meetings of up to 10 days across 2024 and 2025 to advance discussions, build on the annual progress reports, and support the continued work of the Open-ended Working Group, recognizing that States have emphasized that the Group itself serves as a confidence-building measure.

The Committee next took up the draft resolution titled “Youth, disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/78/L.19), presented by the Republic of Korea.

By the text, the Assembly would call upon Member States, the United Nations and other organizations to consider developing and implementing policies and programmes for young people to increase and facilitate their constructive engagement in disarmament and non-proliferation.  The Assembly would further stress the importance of realizing the full potential of young people through education and capacity-building and request the Secretary-General to seek specific measures to promote the meaningful and inclusive participation and empowerment of youth on disarmament and non-proliferation issues.

A recorded vote was requested on preambular paragraph 12.  By its terms, the Assembly would note action 38 of the disarmament agenda of the Secretary-General, in which he describes the young generation as the ultimate force for change and proposes actions to promote youth engagement.

The provision was retained by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (Belarus, Iran, Russian Federation, Syria).

“L.19” as a whole was then approved without a vote.

Also without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution titled “Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament” (document A/C.1/78/L.35).

By the text, tabled by India, the Assembly would call upon Member States to remain vigilant in understanding new and emerging developments in science and technology that could imperil international security.  It would underline the importance of Member States engaging with experts from industry, the research community and civil society in addressing this challenge.  The Assembly would encourage the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters to continue its discussions on current developments in science and technology and their potential impact on international security and disarmament efforts.  It also would encourage Member States to organize events such as conferences, seminars, workshops and exhibitions, and request the Secretary-General to submit to the Assembly at its seventy-ninth session an updated report on the matter.

The Committee turned to the draft resolution titled “Programme of action to advance responsible State behaviour in the use of information and communications technologies in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/78/L.60/Rev.1), submitted by France, Colombia and the United States.

By the text, the Assembly would decide to establish a mechanism under United Nations auspices, upon the conclusion of the 2021-2025 Open-ended Working Group and no later than 2026, that will be permanent, inclusive and action-oriented, with the specific objectives affirmed in Assembly resolution 77/37 and with the common elements for future regular institutional dialogue agreed by consensus in the Working Group’s 2023 annual report.   It would also decide that the scope, structure, content and modalities of this mechanism shall be based on consensus outcomes of the Group, taking into account the Secretary-General’s report, views submitted by States, regional consultations and dialogue. 

Recorded votes were requested on operative paragraph 4 and on the draft as a whole. 

Operative paragraph 4 concerns the establishment of the mechanism. The provision was retained by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 11 against, with 17 abstentions.  

The Committee then approved “L.60/Rev.1” as a whole by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 10 against (Belarus, Burundi, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Russian Federation, Syria), with 12 abstentions.

The representative of Armenia, explaining its votes on “L.4”, titled “Relationship between disarmament and development” (document A/C.1/78/L.4), “L.6”, titled “Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control” (document A/C.1/78/L.6), and “L.7”, titled “Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation” (document A/C.1/78/L.7), said that the referenced Final Document of the Eighteenth Summit of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries held in Azerbaijan contained biased and one-sided formulations that distorted the root causes and essence of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  Paragraphs 662 and 663 of the Final Document fall short of upholding the principles at the heart of the Non-Aligned Movement, particularly the right of people to self-determination.  Armenia would like to register its reservation and disassociation from those paragraphs of resolutions referring to that Summit.

The representative of South Africa, on “L.60/Rev.1”, said the resolution deals with a matter that the Open-ended Working Group was mandated to address, and its operative paragraph 4 fails to fully take into account the agreed process and prejudges the outcome of the ongoing discussion by establishing a mechanism with specific objectives affirmed by the previous General Assembly resolution on an action programme.  Hence, his delegation abstained.  In acknowledgement of the inclusive, transparent, and consultative manner in which the resolution’s authors conducted discussions and the positive way in which it evolved, South Africa voted in favour of the draft as a whole.  His delegation hopes, however, that matters within ambits of the Working Group on ICT and international security will not continue to be brought out of that “inclusive and successful forum” prior to completing its assignment.

The representative of the Philippines said that her country supported both operative paragraph 4 and “L.60/Rev.1” as a whole, as it has actively participated in the Open-Ended Working Group, and further discussions and decisions within this Group are essential, particularly regarding funding requests within the efforts related to ICT security.  “This approach aligns with our common goal of ensuring an open, stable, secure, accessible and peaceful ICT environment,” she stressed, adding that her delegation remains open to continue discussions on cybersecurity. “We reiterate our support for a single-track, State-led permanent mechanism under the UN, reporting to the First Committee,” she said, underscoring that this mechanism should be open, inclusive, transparent, sustainable and adaptable to the evolving needs of developing countries and the dynamic ICT environment.

The representative of Switzerland welcomed draft decision “L.13”.  His country voted against “L.11”, as there was no need to present a resolution on the ongoing Open-Ended Working Group this year.  This draft resolution is not only unnecessary but also raises several issues.  The text does not recognize that Member States have agreed to the framework for responsible State behaviour in cyberspace and that all States should be guided in their ICT use by the consensus reports of the Open-Ended Working Group and the Group of Governmental Experts.  “L.11” takes a “pick and choose” approach.  The emphasis on the importance of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in the use of information and communications technologies is omitted.  It also makes changes to agreed language regarding the potential development of new legally binding norms. 

The representative of China, explaining its vote against “L.60/Rev.1”, clarified that his country is not against the programme of action itself, but the fragmentation of the UN process on ICT security.  The Open-Ended Working Group is the most important result achieved over 25 years, and he noted the agreement on a future single-track, consensus-based mechanism.  “L.60/Rev.1” contains language that implies the possible creation of a parallel processes outside the Working Group, which risks fracturing the UN process and will encourage tendencies of “bloc confrontation” at odds with the interests of all Member States.  He regretted that the draft passes over the Working Group’s latest outcomes and prejudges the outcome of negotiations in 2025.  Also, the draft’s preambular section is selective when citing consensus language from the framework for responsible State behaviour and cybersecurity.  Hopefully, relevant countries will return to the right track of the Working Group and uphold past consensus.

The representative of Japan said his country voted against “L.11” because it believes the resolution is redundant, considering the decision to endorse the second annual progress report of the Open-Ended Working Group tabled by the Group’s Chair.  There is no need for a similar resolution.  He added that the draft contains some wording not consensually agreed. Japan will however continue to actively contribute to discussions and efforts to promote a free, fair, secure and rule-of-law based cyberspace.

The representative of Mexico, explaining his country’s vote in favour of both “L.11” and “L.60/Rev.1”, noted the merits of both resolutions, but regretted a scenario of competing texts and perspectives.  He highlighted that the content of both documents provides opportunities to continue making progress on understanding what is meant by the responsible behaviour of States in cyberspace.  “It is critical that the draft resolutions that delegations table in the future avoid reinterpreting the mandate of the current Working Group,” he stressed.

The representative of the United States, also speaking for France and United Kingdom, said that the three countries did not challenge the link between disarmament and development in “L.4”. However, they question the notion in its preambular paragraph 7 of a symbiotic relationship between them. The resolution’s idea that military expenditures divert funding from development needs nuance, as defence investments are necessary to deliver the peace and security that facilitates development.  On “L.6”, the three countries operate under stringent domestic environmental impacts regulations.  He does not see any direct connection between general environmental standards and multilateral arms control.  On “L.35”, rights referenced in its preambular paragraph 5 relate to those specified in the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  None of these treaties recognize a right to technology or a right to sensitive materials.

The representative of Indonesia, explaining the delegation’s abstention on “L.60/Rev.1”, said that operative paragraph 4 still maintains a strong link to the programme of action, which is premature given that the Open-Ended Working Group is only halfway through its mandate. Although the scope, content and modalities will be discussed within the Working Group, this presupposes the outcome. In principle, Indonesia will continue engaging constructively to implement a safe and secure cyberspace. At the same time, he called for maintaining constructive, incremental and consensus-based deliberations, because parallel and competing initiatives will make it more difficult to achieve a collectively desired result.

The representative of Israel said his country voted for “L.60/Rev.1” as the initiative aimed to create an important, inclusive, and permanent venue for discussing cybersecurity issues.  His county believes that all decisions on substantial matters in the new action plan should be taken by consensus.  The wording in preambular paragraph 13 calling for a consensus-driven future mechanism for regular and institutional dialogues applies, in Israel’s understanding, to any future plan of action.  This principle should have been clearly reflected in the text, including in operative paragraph 4. Israel hopes that this “essential and widely observed principle” will be safeguarded in the text and put into practice in the next phases of deliberations and creation of any future plan of action.  It voted for the resolution, despite unanswered reservations and unaddressed concerns in the final version, in the spirit of cooperation and constructiveness.  As for preambular paragraph 10, he said it is more effective to enhance implementation of existing norms before developing new ones.  He urged his concerns to be noted and reflected in any future deliberations on creation of such plans.

The representative of Cuba said her delegation abstained on “L.60/Rev.1” and operative paragraph 4.  Referring to serious concerns raised by her country last year, she underscored that the relevant consultations have been limited to some organizations, therefore Cuba and other countries of the region were unable to participate.  Additionally, the automatic applicability of international law to the use of ICT in the context of international security does not enjoy universal consensus and is unacceptable to Cuba, as it might undermine participation in the working group.  The mandate of the current Open-ended Working Group includes analyzing national States’ initiatives, she added.  The representative of Brazil said that the First Committee was called upon to examine two competing proposals on the Open-ended Working Group, referring to “L.11” and “L.60/Rev.1”.  This serves cross-purposes and diverts energy from considering substantive issues.  He urged delegations to refrain from tabling proposals on this issue until 2025.  He welcomed “L.13” and supported some elements of both “L.11” and “L.60/Rev.1”.  He hoped, however, for greater convergence.

The representative of Iran, explaining the delegation’s vote on “L.13”, emphasized the need to consider the views of all Member States rather than a select group.  Without meaningful consensus, the Open-ended Working Group’s value will diminish and fail to serve as a forum to build confidence and trust.  In line with its founding resolution, the Working Group must adhere to a consensus-based working method, where every State’s perspective must be respected.  However, Iran’s views are not adequately reflected, and the annual progress reports lack balance, especially concerning Iran’s interests.  While Iran has not obstructed consensus in the past, this cannot be sustained.  His delegation may have no choice but to safeguard its legitimate interests if this pattern continues.  His country is obliged to disassociate from any provisions that do not align with national policy, laws, values, and priorities.  This time, Iran will not obstruct consensus on the draft decision in the spirit of flexibility and cooperation.  His country is committed to supporting future decisions if they encompass the views of all Member States, ensuring that none are left behind.

On “L.35”, titled “Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament” (document A/C.1/78/L.35), he noted that international transfers of dual-use and high-technology products, services and know-how for peaceful purposes are important for socioeconomic development.  While facilitating the fullest possible transfers is essential, there is also a need to regulate transfers when there are reasonable grounds to believe they would be used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The representative of Pakistan, on “L.60/Rev.1”, said his country believes that the consensual approach remains the best avenue to provide solutions to questions surrounding international security, including within the ICT domain.  The ongoing work of the Open-ended Working Group remains the best platform for such an approach and for building common views on a programme of action.  His delegation abstained so as not to prejudge the Working Group’s vital ongoing work.

The representative of India said that his country fully supports the work and modality of the current Open-Ended Working Group, which should remain the main platform for deliberations on ICT issues.  India voted in favour of “L.11”, “L.13” and “L.60/Rev.1”, but against preambular paragraph 3 of “L.11” due to the inclusion of a phrase about a community of shared future for humankind.  “This phrase is part of a political ideology”, he said, stressing that a resolution of the Assembly is not a proper place for it.

The representative of Viet Nam said that her country voted in favour of “L.11” and “L.60/Rev.1” in support of UN efforts to ensure a safe, secure and peaceful environment in the field of ICT, underpinned by international law.  She welcomed progress made so far in the 2021-2025 Open-Ended Working Group, including the establishment of an intergovernmental “Points of Contact” directory as a confidence-building measure in cyberspace and the adoption by consensus of the Group’s second annual report.  Viet Nam attaches great importance to forming a common understanding about how international law applies to the ICT environment.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, explaining the delegation’s votes against “L.11”, expressed concern that the draft contains non-agreed language not drawn from the consensus text.  Her country cannot support arbitrary re-interpretation of the Open-Ended Working Group’s ongoing work and consensus documents. The Republic of Korea will continue playing a constructive role in the Working Group to contribute to the framework for responsible State behaviour in the use of ICT.  Her delegation wishes to establish a UN-led permanent, regular institutional dialogue that is inclusive, consensus-driven and action-oriented.

The representative of Djibouti said her country voted in favour of “L.13” because ICT is a very important domain, which requires trust, together with a mechanism developed in a safe and stable environment.  It also voted for “L.60/Rev.1”, which it co-authored with France, as well as for “L.11”.  She thanked the other authors of “L.35” on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament, also co-authored by her country. She believes all initiatives undertaken should be encouraged and that work should continue in the Open-ended Working Group to bring them all together, as that could ultimately lead to a consensus mechanism.  The issue of ICT is critical for developing countries, she added.

General Statements, Regional Disarmament and Security

Mr. SANCHEZ DE LERIN (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on strengthening security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region calls upon all countries of the region to adhere to relevant legal instruments related to disarmament and non-proliferation, which includes the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which has not yet entered into force.  “The CTBT has established a powerful norm against nuclear testing and is making an invaluable contribution to international peace and security, for the good of humanity,” and all 27 member States of the European Union have ratified it.  He welcomed the latest ratifications by the Solomon Islands and Sri Lanka, increasing the number to 178. 

In that context, he deeply deplored the Russian Federation’s intention to revoke its ratification of the CTBT.  Pending the Treaty’s entry into force, the European Union calls on all States to abide by the moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosion and to refrain from any actions that would undermine the Treaty’s object and purpose.  He underscored that the absence of the CTBT’s entry into force prevents the use of on-site inspections, which is an important verification tool.

Action, Regional Disarmament and Security

The Committee turned to draft resolution “L.10”, titled “Implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace” (document A/C.1/78/L.10). 

By the text, the General Assembly would reiterate its conviction that the participation of all permanent members of the Security Council and major maritime users of the Indian Ocean in the Ad Hoc Committee’s work is important and would assist the progress of a mutually beneficial dialogue to develop conditions of peace, security and stability in the region.  The Assembly would request the Ad Hoc Committee Chair to continue informal consultations with members and report through the First Committee to the General Assembly at its eightieth session.  It would also request the Secretary-General to continue to render, within existing resources, all necessary assistance to the Ad Hoc Committee.

The Committee approved the draft as a whole by a recorded vote of 134 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 44 abstentions.

Next, the Committee took up draft resolution “L.16”, titled “Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region” (document A/C.1/78/L.16).

By the text, the General Assembly would call upon all countries of the Mediterranean region to adhere to relevant multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to disarmament and non-proliferation.  It would also encourage the region’s States to favour conditions necessary to strengthen confidence-building measures by promoting genuine openness and transparency on all military matters.  It would encourage these countries to further strengthen cooperation to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations.

Recorded votes were requested on operative paragraphs 2 and 5.

Operative paragraph 2 would have the Assembly invite Mediterranean countries to consolidate efforts to contribute actively to eliminate all causes of tension in the region and promote just and lasting solutions to the region’s persistent problems through peaceful means, ensuring the withdrawal of foreign forces of occupation and respecting the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries and the right of peoples to self-determination.  The Assembly would call for full adherence to the principles of non-interference, non-intervention, non-use of force or threat of use of force, and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, in accordance with the UN Charter and relevant resolutions.

The Committee retained the provision by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Papua New Guinea, South Sudan).

Operative paragraph 5 would have the Assembly call upon all countries of the Mediterranean region to adhere to relevant multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to disarmament and non-proliferation, thus creating conditions necessary for strengthening peace and cooperation in the region.

The Committee retained the provision by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (South Sudan).

Turning to the draft as a whole, the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (Israel, Papua New Guinea, South Sudan, United States).

Next, the Committee approved without a vote draft resolution “L.26” titled “Regional disarmament” (document A/C.1/78/L.26).

By the text, the General Assembly would call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at regional and subregional levels.

Next, the Committee turned to draft resolution “L.27” titled “Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels” (document A/C.1/78/L.27). 

By the text, the General Assembly would decide to urgently consider the issues involved in conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels and request the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation of principles that can serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control. 

Recorded votes were requested on preambular paragraph 7, operative paragraph 2 and the draft as a whole.  

Preambular paragraph 7 would have the Assembly note with particular interest initiatives taken in different regions of the world, in particular the start of consultations among Latin American countries and proposals for conventional arms control in South Asia. The Assembly would also recognize the relevance and value of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which is a cornerstone of European security.

The Committee retained the provision by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 2 against (India, Russian Federation), with 1 abstentions (Poland).

Operative paragraph 2 would have the Assembly request the Conference on Disarmament to consider the formulation of principles that can serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control and look forward to a report on this subject.

The Committee retained the provision by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 1 against (India), with 49 abstentions.

Turning to the draft as a whole, the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 182 in favour to 1 against (India), with no abstentions.

Next, the Committee approved without a vote draft resolution “L.28” titled “Confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context” (document A/C.1/78/L.28).

By the text, the General Assembly would call upon Member States to refrain from the use or threat of use of force and to pursue these ways and means through sustained consultations and dialogue, while avoiding actions that may hinder or impair such dialogue.  The Assembly would also urge States to strictly comply with all bilateral, regional and international agreements to which they are party.  It would encourage the promotion of bilateral and regional confidence-building measures, with the consent and participation of concerned parties, to avoid conflict and prevent the unintended or accidental outbreak of hostilities.

Explanations of Vote after the Vote

The representative of Israel, explaining his delegation’s position after the vote, said that operative paragraphs 2 and 5 in “L.16” do not reflect the reality in the Middle East. On operative paragraph 2, peace in the Mediterranean is the ultimate goal of the State of Israel. The provision, however, lacks references to, among others, the ongoing use of chemical weapons by Syria and the ongoing proliferation of missiles by Iran.  On the other provision, he said that non-compliance remains a serious issue in the region.

The representative of Iran said his delegation voted in favour of operative paragraph 2 of “L.16” because it calls for the elimination of all causes of tension in the Mediterranean region along with the promotion of just and lasting solutions to its persistent problems.  It also calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces of occupation while respecting the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of all countries of the region as well as the rights of peoples to self-determination, including full adherence to the principle of non-use or threat of use of force. Operative paragraph 5 also highlights the importance of adherence to all multilaterally negotiated legal instruments on disarmaments and on proliferation.

He added that the resolution aligns with calls by successive NPT Review Conferences for the Israeli regime to accede without delay or precondition as a non-nuclear weapon party to the Treaty.  His delegation, however, abstained on the resolution as a whole since it has not factually reflected the realities in the region, including the killing of Palestinians and the actions by the Israeli regime in the Gaza Strip.

The representative of the United States, also speaking on behalf of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, said that these countries voted “yes” on preambular paragraph 7 of “L.27”, as it rightly recognizes the value of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which has been a cornerstone of European security.  The Russian Federation, however, has assaulted that security at its very core through its illegal war against Ukraine and through its continued disregard for arms control, he said, adding that Moscow’s actions against Ukraine run counter to its obligations under the UN Charter and its commitments under the Helsinki Final Act.  “Russia has refused to comply with its obligations under the CFE Treaty since 2007, when it purported to suspend its CFE obligations without valid legal justification,” he stressed.  On 7 November, its withdrawal from CFE will take effect, seriously undermining the Treaty and beyond and the broader conventional arms control architecture. 

The representative of India, explaining its votes against “L.27”, titled “Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels” (document A/C.1/78/L.27), is not convinced that conventional arms control — a global issue — needs to be pursued primarily in the regional and subregional context.  The security concerns of States extend beyond narrowly defined regions.  The notion of preserving a balance in defence capabilities in the regional or subregional context is unrealistic and unacceptable. Also, as the world’s single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, the Conference on Disarmament is focused on instruments of global application.  The UN Disarmament Commission adopted by consensus guidelines and recommendations on regional disarmament in 1993.  Therefore, there is no need for the Conference to engage in formulating principles on the same subject when several other priorities are on its agenda.

The representative of Poland said that her country abstained on preambular paragraph 7 in “L.27”.  In 2022, Poland decided not to support this provision.  While acknowledging the role of the regional arms control of conventional weapons, the situation around the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, resulting from actions by the Russian Federation, cannot be ignored.  Moscow has not fulfilled its obligation since 2007 under CFE.  That country launched aggression against Ukraine in 2022 and withdrew from the Treaty in 2023.  The Treaty can no longer achieve its aim.

General Statements, Disarmament Machinery

SIARHEI MAKAREVICH (Belarus) said his country believes that international security, disarmament and non-proliferation must remain among the priorities of the international agenda because “the effective and long-term resolution of these issues will determine peace, security, development, prosperity and ultimately the very survival of each and every one of us”. His country’s resolution, “L.18”, corresponds to the current needs to improve internationally recognized procedures that allow the international community to verify the development of weapons of mass destruction and establish new rules and standards. Adopting the resolution will confirm Member States’ political commitment to preventing the emergence of new such weapons.  “L.18” remains relevant and has not been changed, except for small technical updates. He urged Member States to support the resolution “because the world is too good for it to be destroyed”.

MARCIAL EDU MBASOGO (Equatorial Guinea), speaking on behalf of several African countries on “L.43”, said that this draft resolution mentions the activities started by the UN Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa.  Its role is to avoid the accumulation of weapons and ensure security in the broader subregion.  The text also relates to the activities of groups affiliated to Boko Haram, piracy and armed robbery in the Gulf of Guinea and the trafficking of persons. Additionally, it encourages greater political support for the regional plan of action to prevent and combat hate speech in digital and audiovisual media in the region.  He asked for its full support.

In a point of order, the representative of the Philippines requested to speak last at today’s meeting.

Mr. ZHANGARAYEV (Kazakhstan) presented “L.38” titled “Report of the Disarmament Commission” (document A/C.1/78/L.38), as Chair of the Commission’s 2023 substantive session. The body convened from 3 to 20 April and successfully concluded with a report submitted to the General Assembly, which contained substantive recommendations to implement transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities, with the goal of preventing an arms race in that realm.  Since his delegation has not received concrete agenda proposals for the next cycle, he suggested continuing informal discussions on new agenda items after the first meeting and before the Commission’s organizational session begins. A decision as to whether to replace transparency and confidence-building in outer space with other important issues will be taken during the next organizational session.  He invited all Member States to join in the spirit of solidarity to fulfil collective aspirations together as one young family with a shared destiny.

DIANE SHAYNE DELA FUENTE LIPANA (Philippines), speaking on behalf of a group of States, regretted that the Conference on Disarmament took no decision on observers this year.  As a result, 39 States that are not members, but are interested in shaping matters of international security and the Conference’s deliberations, were completely prevented from participating.  Noting the decision adopted in 1978 by the tenth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, which stated that all States must be actively concerned with and contribute to disarmament measures, she urged all to adhere to this principle.  The Conference continues to be “bankrolled” with the UN budget, through contributions of every Member State, and denying access to its negotiations undermines its credibility, transparency and accountability.  She appealed for an operative paragraph in “L.58” (document A/C.1/78/L.58) titled “Report of the Conference on Disarmament” calling for expanding the Conference to grant observer status to all interested Member States, without obstructions.

Action, Disarmament Machinery

When the Committee took up the texts in its cluster on Disarmament Machinery, it first approved, without a vote, the draft resolution titled “Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament” (document A/C.1/78/L.5), submitted by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

By the text, the Assembly — reiterating its conviction that a special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament can set the future course of action in the field of disarmament, arms control, non-proliferation and related international security matters — would recall the consensus adoption by the 2016‑2017 Open-ended Working Group of the recommendations on the objectives and agenda of a fourth special session.  It would encourage Member States to continue consultations on the next steps for its convening.

Next, the Committee approved without a vote the draft resolution, titled “United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament” (document A/C.1/78/L.9), submitted by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

By the text, the Assembly would reiterate the importance of United Nations activities at the regional level to advance disarmament and increase the stability and security of its Member States.  The Assembly would commend the three regional centres for peace and disarmament — in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and the Latin America and the Caribbean — for their sustained support provided to Member States for over 30 years and appeal to Member States in each region and international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to the centres in their respective regions to strengthen their activities and initiatives.  The Secretary-General would also be requested to provide all support necessary to the regional centres. 

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution titled “Prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons:  report of the Conference on Disarmament” (document A/C.1/78/L.18), tabled by Belarus.

By the text, the General Assembly would request the Conference on Disarmament to keep under review the emergence of new types of weapons of mass destruction with a view to make recommendations when necessary on specific negotiations on identified types of such weapons.  It would also call upon all States to give favourable consideration immediately to any recommendations of the Conference on Disarmament.

The Committee approved “L.18” by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Ukraine, United States) with 1 abstention (South Sudan). 

Next, it approved without a vote the draft resolution titled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific” (document A/C.1/78/L.22), tabled by Nepal.

It would have the Assembly express its gratitude to the Government of Nepal for enabling the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific to operate from Kathmandu.  The Assembly would appeal to Member States, particularly in that region, as well as international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to strengthen the Regional Centre’s programme of activities and implementation.

Next, the Committee approved, also without a vote, the draft resolution titled “Report of the Disarmament Commission” (document A/C.1/78/L.38), tabled by Kazakhstan.  By the text, the General Assembly would request the Disarmament Commission to continue its work in accordance with its mandate.

It next approved without a vote the draft resolution, titled “Regional confidence-building measures: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa” (document A/C.1/78/L.43), submitted by Sao Tome and Principe on behalf of the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS).

By the text, the Assembly would welcome the Standing Committee’s role throughout the 30 years of its existence, which has enabled the creation of institutions, such as the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa and the Council for Peace and Security in Central Africa.  It would encourage member States of the Standing Committee and other interested States to provide financial support for the implementation of the Central African Convention for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons, Their Ammunition and All Parts and Components That Can Be Used for Their Manufacture, Repair and Assembly (Kinshasa Convention).  It would encourage all signatories to ratify the Convention and ask the Secretary-General to convene a review conference on the treaty.

Turning to the draft resolution titled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean” (document A/C.1/78/L.46), submitted by Peru on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Committee approved it without a vote.

By the text, the Assembly would encourage the Regional Centre to further develop activities in all countries of the region and to provide support to Member States in the national implementation of relevant instruments.  It would invite all States of the region to continue taking part in the Regional Centre’s activities, proposing items for inclusion and maximizing its potential.

Next, the Committee approved the draft resolution titled “United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa” (document A/C.1/78/L.49) without a vote.

By the text, submitted by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, the Assembly would commend the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa for its sustained support to Member States in implementing disarmament, arms-control and non-proliferation activities through seminars and conferences, capacity-building and training, policy and technical expertise, and information and advocacy at the regional and national levels.

The Assembly would call upon Member States and other bilateral and multilateral stakeholders to further enable the Centre to provide adequate assistance to African Member States on arms control and disarmament from a human security perspective — preventing violent extremism, youth and peace and security, and women and peace and security. The Assembly would urge all States, as well as international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to enable the Centre to carry out its activities.

Then, the Committee, also without a vote, approved a draft resolution, submitted by Hungary titled “Report of the Conference on Disarmament” (document A/C.1/78/L.58).

By its terms, the Assembly would call upon the Conference on Disarmament to further intensify consultations and explore possibilities to overcome ongoing deadlock in adopting and implementing a balanced and comprehensive programme of work at the earliest possible date during its 2024 session.  It would also call upon the Conference to undertake efforts to ensure inclusivity and multilateralism in its work, including through participation at its sessions.

The representative of the United States said that the international community should focus on the very real problem of the proliferation of known weapons of mass destruction.  The notion of new such weapons beyond chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear categories remains hypothetical.  “No useful purpose is served by diverting the attention of the international community away from existing threats”, he said.  Hence his country voted against “L.18”.

The representative of Spain, speaking on behalf of the European Union regarding “L.58”, noted that 39 States which are not members of the Conference on Disarmament were prevented from participating in it.  The unprecedented decision of the Russian Federation to refuse to provide them an observer status is a lamentable practice, he stressed, adding that the Conference is funded by the UN budget and contributions by all UN Member States. “It’s unacceptable to not allow these States to participate in these important deliberations if they so wish,” he emphasized, calling for robust and flexible political will by all Conference members of the Conference to move beyond the deadlock.   

The representative of Mexico said that his country joined consensus on “L.58”, but that does not mean that it is happy about the current situation facing the UN disarmament machinery.  The UN Disarmament Commission is identified as the deliberative body while the Conference on Disarmament is deemed as the forum to negotiate legally binding instruments.  However, the latter has not engaged in negotiations since 1996, thus failing to fulfil its mandate.  Every year, it deliberates, duplicating the Disarmament Commission’s function. Convening a fourth special session on disarmament is necessary to revitalize the whole UN disarmament machinery.

Right of Reply

The representative of Israel, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, rejected the Iranian regime’s allegations.  Judging by Iran’s behaviour in the cyberdomain, especially in light of a spike in hacking attempts in the Middle East these past weeks, its remarks are “no less than absurd”.  Iran is systematically working contrary to the international community’s interest and weakening the global arms control architecture, he added. Iran not only sponsors terrorist groups by proliferating conventional weapons, but also uses malicious technological tools to further destabilize the region and world, with its attack against Albania in 2022 being a vivid example.  Iran, which systematically targets critical infrastructure, including hospitals, with cyberattacks, should be the last country to preach about responsible behaviour, he said.

The representative of the Russian Federation, replying to Spain’s statement, said that for 23 years, his country fully complied with its obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. It also maintained a moratorium on nuclear threats for 32 years.  The Russian Federation’s revocation of its ratification of that treaty was a forced response to many years of eight Annex 2 States, including the United States, refusing to enforce its terms.  He added that Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been declared sovereign and the presence of the Russian Federation’s armed forces on their territories is lawful and justified.  On the Russian Federation’s alleged blocking of the participation of 39 States in the work of the Conference on Disarmament, he said that his country only proposed an adherence to the precedent of considering requests for observer status on an individual basis.

The representative of Syria said that desperate attempts by Israel’s delegate to cover up that country’s refusal to participate in the international order and ensure security and cooperation in the Middle East will not conceal its position, which hinders the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region.  There is a military nuclear programme in the region, run by a rogue party, that produces hundreds of nuclear warheads, he said, adding that since 1948, Israel has used all sorts of weapons against Arab civilians, including chemical weapons, white phosphorus and depleted uranium.

The representative of the United States, responding to the Russian Federation about the presence of Russian armed forces in the territories of certain countries, said that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not recognized internationally as independent States.  The host consent provision therefore does not apply.  He added that Ukraine is recognized as an independent State and that it is clear that Russian forces are on its territory against its will.

The representative of Iran said that the Israeli regime is actively involved in malicious cyberattacks around the world, and especially against Iran, including the Stuxnet virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities.  The regime’s cyberattacks on Iran’s public and private sectors created damage that, if left without appropriate management and preventive measures, would have resulted in massive environmental calamities and human casualties around the region.  He added that the Israeli regime’s continued atrocities in Gaza have led to more than 9,000 deaths, of which 42 per cent are children.  The bloodshed and indiscriminate bombardment must stop immediately, and humanitarian aid must be delivered without hindrance.  He strongly condemned the regime’s use of prohibited weapons, such as white phosphorous, adding that the 18,000 tons of bombs dropped on Gaza is 1.5 times the force of those dropped on Hiroshima.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that for several decades, his country tried to collaborate with Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union, as well as the United States, to establish a new European security architecture. However, these attempts were rejected and further frustrated by NATO expansionist efforts.  The non-recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by the United States does not detract from their legitimacy, as the Russian Federation deals with them within the ambit of international law. Regarding the presence of his country’s armed forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he said that the United States is illegally present in Syria and has long operated a military base in Kosovo. It should therefore turn its criticism onto itself for its military presence in various regions of the world, and to refrain from criticizing the Russian Federation.

The representative of the United States said that his country and its allies were prepared to adapt the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe to the new environment. However, the Russian Federation did not honour certain commitments taken at the 1999 Istanbul Summit with respect to its forces in Georgia and the Republic of Moldova.  As for NATO enlargement, it is the free will of States to join alliances.  NATO enlargement has always been demand-driven and States request to join the alliance because they wish to enjoy its protections, he said.