25/10/2002
Press Release
GA/DIS/3240



Fifty-seventh General Assembly

First Committee

21st Meeting (AM)


STRENGTHENED MEANS TO KEEP TERRORISTS FROM ACQUIRING MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS


CALLED FOR IN ONE OF NINE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS APPROVED BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE


Texts also Address Nuclear Weapon Elimination, Dual-Use Technology,

Middle East Nuclear Proliferation, Multilateralism, Central Asia, among Others


The General Assembly would call on Member States to support global efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means, according to one of nine draft resolutions approved this morning in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).


The draft text, presented by India and approved without a vote, would also have the Assembly urge all Member States to undertake and strengthen national measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring mass destruction weapons, their delivery means and related materials and technologies, and invite them to inform the Secretary-General, on a voluntary basis, of steps taken in that regard.


Voicing his support for the draft, the representative of Pakistan underscored the urgent need to ensure that mass destruction weapons did not fall into the hands of terrorists.  The best way to do that was to completely eliminate those weapons, especially nuclear weapons.  Also important was the need to address the underlying causes of terrorism, namely suppression, injustice and deprivation, he said. 


The Committee defeated a draft resolution submitted by Iraq on the effects of depleted uranium in armaments, which would have requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of States and relevant organizations on all aspects of its use and report to the Assembly at its next session.  The vote was 35 in favour to    59 against, with 56 abstentions.  (For details of the vote, see Annex II).


Reaffirming that any possibility that nuclear weapons could be used was a continued risk for humanity, the Assembly would call upon nuclear-weapon States to undertake the necessary steps towards the seamless integration of all five nuclear-weapon States into a process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, according to a draft sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition, entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  the need for a new agenda”. 


The text by the New Agenda Coalition -- a group of seven countries (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden), which introduced a resolution at the fifty-third General Assembly calling for a nuclear-weapon-free world, -- was approved by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 7 against (France, India, Israel, Monaco, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States), with            38 abstentions (see Annex I).

A new draft resolution sponsored by the Netherlands on national legislation on transfers of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology received overwhelming support in a recorded vote of 160 in favour to none against, with no abstentions (see Annex VI).


According to the revised text, the Assembly would invite Member States that were in a position to do so to enact or improve national legislation to exercise effective control over the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology, consistent with States parties’ obligations under international treaties.


The second preambular paragraph drew a lengthy debate before its approval.  That provision recalled that the States parties to global disarmament and non-proliferation treaties had undertaken, inter alia, both to control transfers that could contribute to proliferation activities and to facilitate the fullest possible exchange of materials, equipment and technological information for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of those treaties.


The Committee voted to retain the phrase "inter alia, both to control transfers that could contribute to proliferation activities and" by 117 in favour to none against, with 30 abstentions (see Annex V). 


Several speakers urged a balance between concerns over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on the one hand, and the requirements of the transfer of technology and military equipment and dual-use goods for health and economic prosperity, on the other hand.  States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) had the right to import all equipment and goods necessary for their development, they said.


Cognizant that the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would pose a serious threat to international peace and security, the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of Israel's accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, according to a draft approved by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to  4 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, United States), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu) (see Annex IV).


Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, a separate vote was taken on the sixth preambular paragraph , which concerned the universality of the NPT and IAEA safeguards, by 153 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, United States, Vanuatu) (see Annex III).


Speaking before the votes, Israel's representative called the text blatantly one-sided, contentious and divisive.  He highlighted developments in the region directly related to the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, not the least of which was the sombre experience gained by United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the IAEA.  Additional efforts to acquire mass destruction weapons and missile capability were also under way in the region.


Another new draft resolution, entitled "Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation", was approved by a recorded vote of  100 in favour to 11 against, with 44 abstentions.  It would reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, and urge participation in multilateral negotiations on arms

regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament in a non-discriminatory manner (see Annex VII).

Acting without a vote, the Assembly approved texts on the following:  establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia;

United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament; United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean; and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.


The First Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 28 October, to continue taking action on all draft resolutions and decisions.


Background


The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continueaction on draft resolutions and decisions from the following clusters:  nuclear weapons; conventional weapons; disarmament machinery; related matters of disarmament and international security; and international security.


It had before it drafts concerning the following topics:  the need for a new agenda; effects of the use of depleted uranium in armaments; establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia; and the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.


Action was also expected on the following texts:  national legislation on the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology; the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament; the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean; the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific; terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; and promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.


A draft resolution originally sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition, entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  the need for a new agenda” (document A/C.1/57/L.3/Rev.1), would have the General Assembly reaffirm that any possibility that nuclear weapons could be used was a continued risk for humanity and call upon nuclear-weapon States to undertake the necessary steps towards the seamless integration of all five nuclear-weapon States into a process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. 


It would further call upon them to:  implement the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commitments to apply the principle of irreversibility by destroying their nuclear warheads in the context of strategic nuclear reductions and avoid keeping them in a state that lended itself to their possible redeployment; and to increase their transparency and accountability with regard to their nuclear weapon arsenals and their implementation of disarmament measures.


Also:  to respect fully their existing commitments with regard to security assurances, pending the conclusion of multilaterally negotiated legally binding security assurances to all non-nuclear-weapon States parties; to place their fissile material no longer required for military purposes under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other relevant international verification; and to make arrangements for the disposition of such material for peaceful purposes, in order to ensure that such material remains permanently outside military programmes.


The Assembly would underline the urgency of the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).  It would stress the importance of upholding and maintaining the moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending its entry into force.  It would also call upon all States parties to pursue, with determination and continued vigour, the full and effective implementation of the substantial agreements reached at the      2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT.


The Assembly would call upon those three States that were not yet parties to the NPT and that operated unsafeguarded nuclear facilities to promptly accede to the Treaty without condition as non-nuclear-weapon States.  Those States would also be called upon:  to bring into force the required IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreements; to reverse clearly and urgently any policies to pursue any nuclear weapons development or deployment; and to refrain from any action that could undermine regional and international peace and security and the efforts of the international community towards nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation.


It would call upon those States that had not yet done so to conclude full-scope safeguards agreements with the IAEA and additional protocols to their safeguards agreements on the basis of the Model Protocol.  It would also call for the completion and implementation of the Trilateral Initiative between the IAEA, the Russian Federation and the United States, and for consideration to be given to the possible inclusion of other nuclear-weapon States.


By a further term, the Assembly would agree that the further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be accorded priority and that nuclear-weapon States must live up to their commitments in this regard.  It would also agree that reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be carried out in a transparent and irreversible manner and that the reduction and elimination of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be included in the overall arms reduction negotiations.


In that context, urgent action would be taken to achieve:  further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process; further confidence-building and transparency measures to reduce the threats posed by non-strategic nuclear weapons; concrete agreed measures to reduce further the operational status of nuclear-weapons systems; and the formalizing of existing informal bilateral arrangements regarding non-strategic nuclear reductions.


According to a draft resolution sponsored by Iraq, entitled “Effects of the use of depleted uranium in armaments” (document A/C.1/57/L.14), the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of States and relevant organizations on all aspects of the effects of the use of depleted uranium in armaments and report thereon to the Assembly at its fifty-eighth session.


By a draft resolution sponsored by the Central Asian States, entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia” (document A/C.1/57/L.24/Rev.1), the Assembly would welcome the decision by all five Central Asian States to sign the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty as soon as possible.


It would also invite those States to continue consulting with the five nuclear-weapon States on the draft treaty and its protocol for the establishment of the zone, in conformity with the 1999 Disarmament Commission agreed guidelines for establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones.  The Assembly would also request the Secretary-General, within existing resources, to continue to provide assistance to those States in their further work for the early establishment of the zone.


Under a draft resolution sponsored by Egypt on behalf of the Arab League of States on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/57/L.27), the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of Israel's accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.


The Assembly would call upon that State to accede to the NPT without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of those weapons, and place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.


A draft resolution sponsored by the Netherlands, entitled "National legislation on transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology" (document A/C.1/57/L.18/Rev.1) would have the Assembly invite Member States that were in a position to do so, to enact or improve national legislation, regulations and procedures to exercise effective control over the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology, while ensuring that such legislation, regulations and procedures were consistent with States parties’ obligations under international treaties.


The Assembly would encourage Member States to provide, on a voluntary basis, that information to the Secretary-General, who would be requested to make that accessible for them.  It would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-eighth session.


According to a further text sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on the United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament (document A/C.1/57/L.11), the Assembly would appeal to Member States in each region and those that were able to do so, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to contribute to the Regional Centres in their respective regions to strengthen their activities and initiatives.


A draft resolution sponsored by Trinidad and Tobago on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/C.1/57/L.16), would have the Assembly reiterate its strong support for the role of the Centre and congratulate it for expanding the vast range of activities carried out last year in the field of peace, disarmament and development.


The Centre would be asked to take into account the proposals to be submitted by the countries of the region in promoting confidence-building measures, arms control and limitation, transparency, disarmament and development at the regional level.  The Assembly would appeal to Member States, particularly in the region, and to international governmental and non-governmental organizations to make and increase voluntary contributions to strengthen the Centre, its programmes of activities and their implementation.


Under a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/57/L.35), the Assembly would urge the Secretary-General to ensure the physical operation of the Centre from Kathmandu within six months of the date of signature of the host country agreement and to enable it to function effectively. 


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, the only resources of the Centre, to strengthen its programmes of activities and their implementation.

According to a new draft resolution entitled “Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction” (document A/C.1/57/L.49/Rev.1), the Assembly, deeply concerned by the evidence of growing risk of linkages between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and especially that terrorists might seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction, would call upon all Member States to support international efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring those weapons and their delivery means. 


The Assembly would urge all Member States to undertake and strengthen national measures, as appropriate, to prevent terrorists from acquiring mass destruction weapons, their delivery means, and related materials and technologies.  It would invite them to inform, on a voluntary basis, the Secretary-General of the measures taken in that regard, and request him to convene a panel of governmental experts, to be established in 2003, to undertake a study on the related issues.


Under a draft resolution sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, entitled “Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation” (document A/C.1/57/L.10), the Assembly would reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.


It would urge the participation of all interested States in multilateral negotiations on arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament in a non-discriminatory manner.  It would also call, once again, upon all Member States to renew and fulfil their individual and collective commitments to multilateral cooperation.


States parties to the relevant instruments on weapons of mass destruction would be asked to consult and cooperate among themselves in resolving their concerns with regard to cases of non-compliance, as well as on their implementation, in accordance with the procedures defined in those instruments.  They would also be requested to refrain from resorting to, or threatening to resort to, unilateral actions, or directing unverified non-compliance accusations against one another.


Statements


KEVIN DOWLING (Ireland), speaking about the resolution on reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons, said that given the reissuance of the correct version of the draft late Wednesday, he requested that action on the text be deferred.


RODOLFO BENÍTEZ VERSÓN (Cuba) said that on 23 October, at Cuba's embassy in Mexico City, his Government deposited its ratification instruments for the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco).  With ratification by Cuba, that Treaty would enter into force throughout its area of application, thereby declaring Latin America and the Caribbean the first inhabited zone totally free from nuclear weapons.  During Cuba's decision to proceed with ratification, the United States -- the sole nuclear Power in the Americas -- had maintained a hostile policy towards Cuba, stiffened its economic blockade, and intensified its threats of use of force, while keeping intact its illegal occupation of part of Cuba's territory.  Despite that, Cuba aimed to strengthen the multilateral approach to disarmament and arms control. 


GUSTAVO ALBIN (Mexico) hailed Cuba's ratification of the Treaty of Tlatelolco.  By that ratification, the denuclearization system reflected in that major instrument would become fully effective throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, marking a definitive step towards consolidating the region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.  Indeed, the Treaty's successful operation was a major step towards general and complete disarmament and would encourage further progress in consolidating similar treaties in other regions.  That would also strengthen the nuclear-weapon-free nature of the southern hemisphere.


MOHAMMED KARIM MAHMOUD (Iraq), referring to his draft resolution on the effects of the use of depleted uranium in armaments, said that text was intricately linked to the need to preserve the world from the use of a new type of armament.  The recommendations of the European Commission in 2001 declared that there were major risks in using depleted uranium in armaments and deemed it very dangerous.  It caused cancer, in particular leukemia, or blood cancer.  Studies of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in March 2001 had shown that, three years after the use of depleted uranium in Serbia and Montenegro, there was atmospheric and soil pollution of low density.  Studies had also shown that water might be polluted in the future. 


Continuing, he recalled that the European Parliament last year adopted a resolution on the effect of depleted uranium emissions, urging the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to cease the use of that material.  Some member States of the European Union had made similar appeals, but in vain. Many other studies, including by the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and non-governmental organizations, had cautioned against the use of depleted uranium.   Studies had also shown that more than 200,000 people who had taken part in the Gulf War in 1991 had been stricken with the "Gulf syndrome".  That had been followed by the "Balkans syndrome". 


He said that the use of depleted uranium in armaments in the past decade had created major risks, thus compelling him to request the cessation of its use.  If Member States did not meet the concerns of their people and carry out their responsibilities by putting an end to the use of depleted uranium, they would suffer its effects for thousands of years to come.  Some States might think that Iraq was urging the adoption of the draft because of a national, and not a global, concern.  Could anyone in this room say that the concern was not legitimate, he asked.


MOFFAT MAKANDE (Malawi) said that had his delegation been present, he would have voted "yes" on the following drafts:  Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/57/L.36); assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States (document A/C.1/57/L.40); nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/57/L.43); a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.42); and on the illicit small arms trade (document A/C.1/57/L.32).


HARILD NIELSEN (Denmark), speaking on behalf of the European Union on the occasion of the presentation to the Secretary-General of the Joint Ministerial Declaration in support of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), said he wished to reiterate the importance that the Union attached to that Treaty's early entry into force.  As a sign of the strength of its commitment to that goal, all of the Union's member States had associated themselves with the Declaration.  They called, once again, on all those States that had not yet done so, to sign and ratify the CTBT, without delay and without condition.


Action on Drafts


The Committee took up a draft resolution on a new agenda towards a nuclear-weapon-free world (document A/C.1/57/L.3/Rev.1).  The representative of Germany reminded the Committee that he had supported that draft when it was first introduced in 2000.  He was convinced that non-strategic nuclear weapons should be eliminated and he shared the commitment undertaken during the 2000 NPT Review Conference to implement 13 steps towards nuclear disarmament.  The New Agenda Coalition presented two drafts this year aiming to fulfil that goal, but nuclear disarmament could only be realized through a gradual process.  The new drafts had not taken that essential element into account or recent positive developments.  Thus, he would abstain in the vote on that text, along with the one to be acted upon next week by the Coalition on reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/57/L.2/Rev.1).


Then, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/57/L.3/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 7 against (France, India, Israel, Monaco, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States), with 38 abstentions (see Annex I).


Speaking after the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation said that the events taking place in Moscow were a reminder of the genuine threat to international peace and security, which dictated the need for the international community to unify its efforts.  Russia was a party to the NPT and a fervent advocate of nuclear disarmament.  Nevertheless, the critical assessment of certain issues in the draft resolution, although current and reflective of the will of his and other countries to implement nuclear disarmament -- especially those terms opposing the weaponization of outer space and national missile defence -- gave him pause.  In particular, measures related to non-strategic weapons were premature, because that question was so complex.  He was ready to pursue the dialogue, however, and considered that the Conference on Disarmament was the only appropriate forum. 


Speaking after the vote, the representative of China said he had voted in favour of the draft because he supported its objectives and content.  He also voiced support for nuclear disarmament in general and the early realization of a nuclear-weapon-free world.  Stressing that nuclear-weapon States should never be the first to use nuclear weapons, he also called for greater transparency with respect to such arms.  Additionally, addressing States parties to the NPT, he urged them to submit their national reports in accordance with the 2000 Review Conference’s final document.


In spite of having voted in favour of the draft, he stated that the concept and definition of “non-strategic nuclear weapons” were not clear.  His delegation, thus, had reservations about that part of the text.  He expressed hope that that phrase, as well as other contextual deficiencies of the draft, could be improved upon in the future.


Also speaking after the vote, the representative of Switzerland first expressed regret over the events taking place in Moscow.  He then wished to clarify his position on the draft.  He said his country’s position on disarmament was well known.  Switzerland attached great importance to implementation of the  13 steps of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.  He said that progress towards non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament should be gradual and realistic and take place in an environment of cooperative dialogue.  Steps, no matter how timid, should be encouraged.  Unfortunately, such progress was not adequately highlighted in the draft.  Additionally, the draft did not reflect that the 13 steps should be implemented in a balanced manner.  That is why he had abstained.


The representative of Colombia referred to the thirteenth preambular paragraph, which expressed grave concern that the CTBT had not yet entered into force, and operative paragraphs 9 and 11, which agreed on the importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications and underlined the urgency of entry into force.  He said that, in line with international law and Colombia’s Constitution, objectives of the Treaty could only be satisfied if ratification took place.  He reaffirmed the desire to work out a satisfactory arrangement with the Secretariat of the CTBT so that his Government could ratify the document at the earliest possible date.


The representative of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the United States and France, said the three countries had voted against the draft.  He supported negotiations for a fissile material cut-off treaty and agreed that there was a necessity for international compliance with IAEA safeguards.  However, other elements of the draft were not acceptable.  For example, the sixteenth preambular paragraph said there were no signs of efforts involving all five nuclear-weapon States to bring about elimination of their nuclear arsenals.  This, however, was not part of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.


The three Governments were committed to nuclear reductions, he added.  However, the draft did not reflect progress in that area.  It did not even make reference to the Moscow Treaty.  There were many other problematic paragraphs, such as the ninth preambular paragraph, which seemed to imply that nuclear disarmament was the only imperative of the NPT, and operative paragraph 5, which singled out security assurances for priority treatment in relationship to the  2005 NPT Review Conference.  The sponsors of the draft shared his attachment to the NPT and the review process.  The present review process had begun well, and he hoped that it would bring about constructive and realistic approaches to non-proliferation.


The representative of India said that he did not approve of the twentieth preambular paragraph, which expressed deep concern at the continued retention of the nuclear-weapons option by “those three States that were not yet parties to the Treaty”.  He also criticized operative paragraphs 18, 19 and 20, which called on the same three States to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon States and supported the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia.  Those paragraphs were irrelevant to the draft and did not reflect reality.


He reminded delegates that India had already exercised its nuclear option and was not seeking any special status.  However, the simple reality of the matter had to be acknowledged.  Additionally, the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia was not realistic as it would not be freely arrived at by States in the region.  Also, the draft was silent on areas of proliferation that the NPT had failed to stem.  He did support the idea of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  However, he expressed disappointment with the discriminatory principles enshrined in the NPT.  For those reasons, he had cast a negative vote.


The representative of Pakistan said the draft had incorporated many aspects of the final document of the Review Conference.  With respect to the twentieth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 18, he stressed that his country had never asked for any special status.  Additionally, the calls made by that paragraph might have the opposite effect of what it wanted to achieve.  It also implied that certain States had special rights to possess nuclear weapons.  That is why he had voted against the draft.


The representative of Australia said that the proliferation of nuclear weapons was a serious challenge to international peace and security.  As a nuclear-weapon-free State, his country supported a realistic, balanced method to nuclear disarmament.  He, thus, supported the draft.  He did, however, have some difficulties with certain sections.  For example, the draft lacked sufficient balance and did not accurately reflect the commitments of the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, in particular with respect to non-strategic nuclear weapons.


The Committee then turned to the draft on the effects of depleted uranium (document A/C.1/57/L.14).


Speaking before the vote, the representative of the United States said he would vote against the draft.  The agenda of the General Assembly did not need an item on that subject, since the WHO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) had already completed studies which maintained that depleted uranium had no negative effects on the environment or human health.  Additionally, the second and third preambular paragraphs incorrectly implied that depleted uranium could be considered a new weapon of mass destruction.


Also speaking before the vote, the representative of Denmark, on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said he would vote against the draft because of two considerations.  First, he could not support the second preambular paragraph, which qualified depleted uranium as a weapon of mass destruction.  Second, regarding the fourth preambular paragraph, he reiterated the findings of the WHO and UNEP.


The representative of Pakistan said that the allegations that depleted uranium was a weapon of mass destruction could not be justified.  Thus, he would abstain.


The text was then rejected by a recorded vote of 35 in favour to 59 against, with 56 abstentions (see Annex II).


Next, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/57/L.24/Rev.1). 


The representative of India said he had joined consensus on that text because the proposal had been supported by all States of the region, in conformity with the requirement that such arrangements should be freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned.  It was gratifying that those States were getting the international support they deserved. 


The Committee turned to the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/57/L.27).


The United States representative said he opposed that text, as his delegation had every year since that one-sided initiative took shape.  Everyone in the room knew that the overriding political fact of the Middle East was the regrettable lack of a peace settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbours.  His country's deep concern about those circumstances and its efforts to promote an enduring reconciliation were also well known.  The text, however, had not met the fundamental requirements of fairness and balance.  It had confined itself to concern about the activities of a single country, but had omitted references to other issues relating to the question of nuclear weapons proliferation in the region. 


For example, he continued, the draft had not mentioned the Middle East country found to be in non-compliance with the NPT.  Nor had it alluded to steps being taken by other States in the region to develop nuclear weapons, even those that were parties to the NPT.  There was also no comment on the failure of some Middle East States to fulfil their NPT obligations by concluding safeguards recommendations.  He also regretted the text's selective use of the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.  That political distortion did not enhance the NPT regime.  The text, overall, had not advanced the calls for non-proliferation and was more likely to impair it.


The representative of Pakistan expressed his support for the draft, but said he had reservations on the fifth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph    3, calling for the universalization of the NPT, to which Pakistan was not a party.  As a State that possessed nuclear weapons, it could not accede to the NPT or accept those references in the text.


The representative of Israel said that the Committee was again being asked to vote on a draft that was blatantly one-sided, contentious and divisive, and undermined, rather than enhanced, confidence in the Middle East.  Since it was first introduced, many developments had occurred, which were directly related to the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, not the least of which was the sombre experience gained by United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the IAEA.  In addition, other efforts were under way in the region to acquire mass destruction weapons and missile capability. 


He said that the bias of the text flowed from the fact that the real risk of proliferation was emanating from countries that had not complied with their relevant international obligations and were engaged in ongoing efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, with destabilizing effects, both regionally and globally.  The text also ignored the profound hostility towards Israel by those countries.  Its adoption, therefore, would not serve the greater objectives of curbing proliferation in the region.  Such resolutions on arms control should focus objectively on addressing those issues. 


Instead, he went on, the text focused entirely on one country that had never threatened its neighbours or abrogated its obligations under any treaty.  It singled out Israel in a way that no other Member State was being singled out in the Committee.  That was counter-productive to peace in the region and had not lent the Committee any credibility.  Israel's constructive approach to arms control and non-proliferation was best demonstrated by its attitude towards the draft on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, but that was strongly undermined by the bias of the present text.  Two years ago, new, unbalanced language was introduced into the text, which represented a selective use of the NPT for the purpose of launching a political assault against Israel.  The Committee should not become a venue for political discrimination; delegates should oppose the draft.


Then, the Committee voted to retain the sixth preambular paragraph, which concerned the universality of the NPT and IAEA safeguards, of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/57/L.27) by a vote of 153 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, United States, Vanuatu) (see Annex III).


The Committee next approved the draft resolution as a whole by a vote of  150 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 9 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, and Vanuatu) (see Annex IV).


Speaking after the vote, the representative of Canada said he had abstained in the vote.  His country's policy regarding nuclear non-proliferation and universal adherence to the NPT was well known.  Canada also supported the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, which called on all States not parties to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States.  In its operational paragraphs, however, the draft resolution failed to deal with his concerns regarding compliance with the Treaty.  And, like last year's text, it failed to deal appropriately with both adherence to, and full compliance with, the NPT.


The representative of India said he had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole and he had opposed the sixth preambular paragraph, which, referring to the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, called for universal adherence.  The focus of the text should be limited to the region it intended to address.  The multifarious issues in the draft had received widespread consideration by the international community.  Hopefully, it would be possible to make progress in coming years through the positive contributions of States of the region concerned.


The representative of Israel said he was disappointed at the approval of that draft resolution.  If anyone thought that it, in any way, eliminated the pressing and acute demands of the region, they were doing themselves and the people of the region a grave disservice.


The Committee turned to the new draft resolution on national legislation on transfers of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology (document A/C.1/57/L.18/Rev.1).


The representative of Kuwait, on behalf of the Member States of the League of Arab States' Members of the United Nations, said those countries would support the draft since they believed in its message and purpose, which was to support the non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.  That corresponded to their commitments under relevant global treaties.  They would abstain in the separate vote on a phrase in the second preambular paragraph, as that exaggerated and politicized relevant commitments dealing with the exportation of technologies and dual-use goods.


(The second preambular paragraph recalled that the States parties to the international disarmament and non-proliferation treaties had undertaken, inter alia, both to control transfers that could contribute to proliferation activities and to facilitate the fullest possible exchange of materials, equipment and technological information for peaceful purposes, in accordance with the provisions of those treaties).


The representative of Jordan, associating himself with the statement just made on behalf of the Arab League, expressed support for that draft, but said that the second preambular paragraph was inconsistent with the idea behind such transfers for peaceful use.  Since that aspect was also dealt with in the first and third preambular paragraphs, as well as in operative paragraph 1, he would oppose it. 


Also adding his voice to the statement made on behalf of the League, the representative of Algeria said his country's commitment to disarmament remained firm and strong.  It was important to find a balance between concerns over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on the one hand, however, and the requirements of the transfer of technology and military equipment and dual-use goods for health and economic prosperity, on the other hand.  Adherence by States parties to the NPT gave them the right to import all equipment and goods necessary for their development.  Hence, he called for the elimination of all obstacles, increasing daily, to the efforts of developing countries.


He drew attention to systems created outside the frameworks of that and other conventions, which detracted from development efforts.  The argument behind them was always the non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons.  While he fully supported that aim, that was no justification for preventing the developing world from benefiting from technology for peaceful purposes and improving their living standards.  Algeria had an unconditional right to import technology and all other goods for peaceful purposes.  The insertion of a phrase in the second preambular paragraph -- "inter alia, both to control transfers that could contribute to proliferation activities and" -- that added imbalance to the text, especially since that legitimate concern been voiced in the first preambular paragraph.


The representative of Canada said he strongly supported the text and its aim to enhance effective control over such transfers.  He commended the Netherlands for that new initiative and was pleased to support it, however, he wished to emphasize the importance of balance in the text, particularly the need for the Committee to recall the undertakings of States parties with regard to controlled transfers that could contribute to proliferation activities or facilitate the fullest possible exchange of materials, equipment and technological information for peaceful purposes.  That balance was essential to the purpose and value of the draft.  In anticipation of possible proposals to amend the second preambular paragraph, he urged that it be retained in the text "as it is".


Also explaining his position before the vote, the representative of Australia said he was pleased to support the text in its entirety and urged others to do likewise.  Implementation of effective legislation was the "first line of defence" against proliferation.  All States parties to the relevant treaties, therefore, must implement national legislation that controlled transfers that could contribute to proliferation, while, at the same time, facilitated the fullest possible exchange of materials and information for peaceful purposes.  He emphasized that the language of the second preambular paragraph was balanced and entirely appropriate.


The representative of Iran said that a comprehensive and unified approach was lacking over the application and implementation of such controls.  Export controls established to cover items that could contribute to proliferation activities were operated under discriminatory procedures in contravention to international agreements, thereby hampering activities for peaceful purposes.  States parties to the relevant treaties had the legitimate right to benefit from such transfers.  Moreover, the concept of transfer controls had been sufficiently covered under the title of the draft and the first preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 1 and 2. 

He said that the only reference to the right of States parties to peaceful use transfers was in the second preambular paragraph, and that had been conditioned, once again, on the fulfillment of an obligation to ensure that such transfers could not contribute to proliferation activities.  That phrase was too vague and could provide the pretext for hampering the transfers for peaceful purposes.  Guidelines should be established within a multilaterally agreed framework with the participation of all concerned States.  The second preambular paragraph distorted that balance and used language that had not been derived from any disarmament agreement.  Due to the importance of national export controls over such transfers, however, he would support the draft.


The representative of Malaysia said he supported the thrust of the text and was pleased that, as a result of consultation, references to the rights of States parties to such transfers for peaceful purposes had been incorporated into the text.  The phrase to be voted upon in the second preambular paragraph, however, could lead to an interpretation that might hamper the legitimate right of developing countries to acquire and receive the fullest possible exchange of equipment and material for peaceful purposes.  Such an interpretation would contravene the relevant provisions of international disarmament and non-proliferation treaties.  He would abstain in the vote on that phrase, but that did not mean a weakening of Malaysia's resolve to implement all relevant treaties.  He would support the draft as a whole.


Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Denmark expressed his full support for the statements just made by the Canadian and Australian delegations.


Then, the Committee, in a separate vote, decided to retain the phrase in the second preambular paragraph:  "inter alia, both to control transfers that could contribute to proliferation activities and" by a vote of 117 in favour to none against, with 30 abstentions (see Annex V).


It approved the draft resolution on national legislation on arms transfers (document A/C.1/57/L.18/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to none against, with no abstentions (Annex VI).


Speaking after the vote, the representative of Cuba said he had serious difficulties supporting the draft as originally introduced.  However, he had approached the authors with proposed amendments.  The new version was much more balanced and covered all aspects.  He would have preferred, however, for the draft to have been adopted without a recorded vote.  The phrase in the second preambular paragraph had given rise to legitimate concerns.  The phrase was ambiguous and might have created confusion with respect to transfers for peaceful purposes.  That was why he had abstained in the vote on that specific phrase.


The representative of Indonesia, also speaking after the vote, said he fully subscribed to the draft.  He added that technological cooperation for peaceful purposes was essential to developing countries.  Unfortunately, the application of an ad hoc exports control regime had hampered legitimate cooperation.  In that regard, he supported a multilateral, non-discriminatory treaty on transfers.  Because of such reasons, he had abstained from the vote on the phrase in the second preambular paragraph.


The representative of Israel expressed full support for the resolution.


The Committee then turned to cluster seven, namely, disarmament machinery.


It first took action on the draft concerning the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament (document A/C.1/57/L.11).  It was approved without a vote.


It then took up the draft on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/C.1/57/L.16).  It was also approved without a vote.


The Committee then moved on to the draft concerning the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/57/L.35).  It was also approved without a vote.


It then turned to cluster nine, namely, related matters of disarmament and international security.


It took up the draft on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (document A/C.1/57/L.49/Rev.1), introduced by India.


Speaking before the vote, the representative of Pakistan said he supported the objectives of the draft.  He added that there was an urgent need to ensure that weapons of mass destruction did not fall into the hands of terrorists.  In that regard, the best way to combat the threat was the complete elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.  Biological and chemical weapons posed a more immediate threat, since they were easier to manufacture and transport.  In that context, it was also necessary to strengthen the conventions on biological and chemical weapons.  He also felt it important to address the underlying causes of terrorism, namely suppression, injustice and deprivation.  He hoped that the sponsors of the draft would take all these aspects into account in the future.


The draft was approved without a vote.


Speaking after the vote, the representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said he supported the consensus, because the resolution addressed a key concern.  The attacks of 11 September had proven that international security was indivisible.  Countries simply had to cooperate with each other.  There was the urgent need to strengthen multilateral treaties and other instruments in that area.  Additionally, treaties had to be implemented and strictly complied with. 


The NPT, as the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime, was an essential element of first defence against terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, he said.  He also supported the efforts of the IAEA and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to prevent terrorists from acquiring such weapons.  Export controls had to be strengthened.  He also called for enhanced dialogue to promote disarmament and non-proliferation and to combat terrorism.


Also speaking after the vote, the representative of Israel congratulated the Indian delegation on its initiative and the First Committee for adopting the draft without a vote.  Terrorism had many victims and suicide terrorism, in particular, constituted a serious obstacle to peace.  The danger was made worse by States that supported terror.  Additionally, States trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction required an urgent response.  In that regard, he called upon all States to ensure that weapons did not fall into the hands of terrorists and that their territory was not used by terrorists to transfer weapons.


The representative of Egypt said the draft represented a tangible attempt to take new threats into account.  The Indian delegation had demonstrated that it could take into account the diverse concerns of the Member States and, in addressing them, produce an acceptable formula.


The representation of Côte d’Ivoire then took the floor.  He expressed the desire of his country’s name to be added to the list of co-sponsors to the draft.


The Committee then turned to cluster 10, namely, international security.  It took up the draft on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/57/L.10).


Speaking before the vote, the representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the draft was important because it reaffirmed multilateralism as the core principle in negotiating and resolving disarmament and non-proliferation concerns and underlined the importance of preserving the existing agreements on arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament.


Upon introduction of the draft, the Non-Aligned Movement had indicated that it would welcome comments and proposals from other States and groups.  Unfortunately, however, there had not been enough engagement on the text by a large enough number or group of States to lead to amendments.


The representative of Denmark, on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said he was fully committed to multilateralism.  It had the potential to enlarge the scope of agreement in the field of non-proliferation and disarmament and play a key role in implementing international instruments to combat weapons of mass destruction.  In 2001, he had supported the useful resolution on multilateralism and would be happy to support such a text again.  Unfortunately, the present version contained some elements that he found unacceptable.  He would, thus, not support it.


Specifically, the draft did not sufficiently reflect the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter.  It also contained ambiguous and unbalanced language and failed to give sufficient credit to non-multilateral measures.  He expressed regret that the draft was creating divisions.  It was a missed opportunity to unite the international community in the area of disarmament.  He did, however, remain committed to multilateralism.


The representative of Cuba said that, after hearing the Danish delegation’s statement, he could only regret the decision of the European Union to not have taken up the initial offer made to it by the Non-Aligned Movement to share its concerns about the draft.  He hoped that, in the future, the European Union would be able to work with the Non-Aligned Movement to find a consensus.  Cuba wanted to strengthen the United Nations as the appropriate body for encouraging multilateralism and ensuring collective security.  The United Nations Charter referred to multilateralism as a good way to maintain international peace and security, and drafts sharing that vision should, therefore, be supported.


The representative of the United States said he would be voting against the draft.  The United States. was strongly committed to multilateralism, and his delegation would have been happy to join consensus on a thoughtful, well-balanced draft that reflected the sentiments of many States.  However, the current draft would more likely create divisions.


The representative of New Zealand said she was also a strong supporter of multilateralism and wanted to renew her commitment to it.  However, she was unable to support the draft because of elements that were unconstructive and confrontational.  Because it did not acknowledge the role of bilateral and plurilateral approaches to disarmament, it could not be considered balanced.  She said that she had proposed changes to the sponsors, but they had not taken them into account.  She could, therefore, not support the draft.


The Committee then proceeded to take action on the draft. It was approved by a recorded vote of 100 in favour to 11 against, with 44 abstentions (see Annex VII).


Speaking after the vote, the representative of Switzerland thanked the sponsors for reaffirming the principles of multilateralism.  However, it was problematic to exclude bilateral and plurilateral approaches to disarmament and non-proliferation, especially if such approaches benefited the international community.  The resolution also contained dubious language.  In that regard, he urged Member States to show respect to each other and not engage in unverified accusations.  For such reasons, Switzerland had abstained.


The representative of Mexico added that he had voted in favour because he shared the draft’s objective of promoting multilateralism in disarmament and non-proliferation.  Progressive development of international law was the best way to promote international peace and security.  He reaffirmed the need to multilaterally strengthen international legal architecture in that regard.  That was why he had supported the draft.


Also speaking after the vote, the representative of Uruguay voiced support for the spirit of the draft.  He suggested that some of its stipulations, however, could have been more carefully worked out.  Operative paragraph 6, for example, called for States to refrain from acting or threatening to act in a unilateral manner.  That was not a clear statement.  After all, States, by their very nature, usually acted unilaterally.  To tell States not to act in that manner was going too far.  In summary, he emphasized that the draft’s language should have more precisely reflected the meanings intended by the sponsors.


The representative of Canada, speaking after the vote, said he had abstained.  He would have been pleased to support the draft.  Unfortunately, however, he had been unable to do so.  He did not agree that multilateralism was the only fundamental means to promote disarmament.  Plurilateral and bilateral approaches were also helpful, and no method used in isolation was sufficient.  Also, the tone of the draft was not inclusive.  It offered an overly rigid and restrictive text that would only limit options of the global community.  He added that he considered the twelfth preambular paragraph, which stressed that unilateralism undermined peace, and operative paragraph 6, which requested States to refrain from unilateral action, to be “tendentious”.  He looked forward to another version next year that could be adopted without a vote

The representative of Australia said he supported multilateralism.  However, the draft failed to acknowledge the legitimate role played by plurilateral, bilateral and national arrangements to promote disarmament.  He could not support the draft, but would continue to play a role in promoting disarmament and multilateralism.


The representative of South Africa drew attention to a revised draft on convening a fourth special session on disarmament (document A/C.1/57/L.8/Rev.1).  Owing to time constraints, he would explain the revisions on Monday.


Committee Chairman MATIA MULUMBA SEMAKULA KIWANUKA (Uganda) then introduced his revised draft resolution now entitled “Disarmament, non-proliferation and international peace and security” (document A/C.1/57/ L.26/Rev.2).  He explained that the text followed a similar one introduced by his predecessor last year, which the Assembly adopted without a vote.  The need for the General Assembly to reiterate its commitment to a multilateral approach to the issues before the Committee was more vital than ever before.  The second revision now bore the new title and responded to a broader challenge facing the Committee.  While it was true that multilateral cooperation must be revitalized, his intention was to accommodate as many views as possible and bring the Committee back to the deeper theme of consolidating efforts towards international peace and security in the years ahead. 


He said the goal was not just to promote multilateralism, per se, but to build a safer, more prosperous and secure world for all.  Accordingly, the new text bore a new title, and new preambular and operative terms underscoring that goal of strengthening international peace and security.  It placed special emphasis on the importance of binding legal obligations as a means to pursue new efforts to strengthen agreed global norms.  Disarmament and non-proliferation would advance common security interests, which was why those issues had appeared on the Committee's agenda for so many years.  He urged a deepening of multilateral cooperation, aimed at realizing that that goal was aimed at improving conditions of global peace and security.


(annexes follow)

ANNEX I


Vote on New Agenda


The draft resolution entitled “Towards a nuclear free world:  the need for a new agenda” (document A/C.1/57/L.3/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of    118 in favour to 7 against, with 38 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.


Against:  France, India, Israel, Monaco, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States.


Abstaining:  Albania, Australia, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Belize, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Liberia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX I)


ANNEX II


Vote on Depleted Uranium


The draft resolution on the effects of the use of depleted uranium in armaments (document/C.1/57/L.14) was rejected by a recorded vote of 35 in favour to 59 against, with 56 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.


Abstaining:  Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Maldives, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX II)


ANNEX III


Vote on Preambular Para 6/Middle East Nuclear Proliferation


Preambular paragraph 6, concerning the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT, of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/57/L.27) was approved by a recorded vote of 153 in favour to2 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.


Against:  India, Israel.


Abstaining:  Bhutan, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, United States, Vanuatu.


Absent:  Belize, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX III)


ANNEX IV


Vote on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation


      The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/57/L.27) was approved by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to      4 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.


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


Abstaining:  Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu.


Absent:  Belize, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX IV)


ANNEX V

Vote on Preambular Para 2/National Legislation


The phrase "inter alia, both to control transfers that could contribute to proliferation activities and" in the second preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on national legislation concerning the transfer of arms and dual-use technology (document A/C.1/57/L.18/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to none against, with 31 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia.


Against:  None.


Abstaining:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen.


Absent:  Barbados, Belize, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX V)


ANNEX VI

Vote on National Legislation on Arms Transfers


The draft resolution on national legislation on transfer of arms and dual-use technology (document A/C.1/57/L.18/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to none against, with no abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.


Against:  None.


Absent:  Barbados, Belize, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX VI)


ANNEX VII

Vote on Multilateralism


The draft resolution on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/57/L.10) was approved by a recorded vote of 100 in favour to 11 against, with 44 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.


Against:  Bulgaria, Germany, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.


Abstaining:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Belize, Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.


* *** *