APPROVING 15 DRAFTS, FIRST COMMITTEE URGES ALL STATES TO REMAIN SEIZED ‘AT HIGHEST

POLITICAL LEVEL’ OF NEED TO OPERATIONALIZE COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR-TEST-BAN TREATY

Other Texts Included Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere,

Mine Ban Treaty, Outer Space Transparency, National Legislation on Arms Transfers

The Disarmament Committee this afternoon approved 15 texts as it wrapped up its second day of consideration of draft resolutions and decisions aimed at strengthening international security in the areas of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons, regional disarmament and security, other disarmament measures, and the United Nations disarmament machinery.

By a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria), the Committee approved a draft resolution by which the General Assembly would stress the vital importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and without conditions, to achieve the earliest entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).  (For details of the vote, see annex VI).

Further, the Assembly would urge all States not to carry out nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, to maintain their moratoriums in this regard and to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty, while stressing that these measures do not have the same permanent and legally binding effect as the entry into force of the Treaty.

The Committee recommended a draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas for adoption by the General Assembly, which would affirm the Assembly’s conviction of the important role of nuclear-weapon-free zones in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and in extending the areas of the world that are nuclear-weapon-free.  With particular reference to the responsibilities of the nuclear-weapon States, the Assembly would call upon all States to support the process of nuclear disarmament and to work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Prior to approving the draft resolution as a whole, two separate recorded votes were taken, on the last three words in operative paragraph 6 and on the whole of that paragraph.  That paragraph reads:

“Welcomes the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties, on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States of the region concerned, and calls upon States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia.”

The Committee voted to retain the last three words in that paragraph, “and South Asia” by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 2 against (India, Pakistan), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Myanmar, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States).  (See annex III.)

The full paragraph was retained by a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 1 against ( India), with 8 abstentions ( Bhutan, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States).  (See annex IV.)

By a vote of 162 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), and 7 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Russian Federation), the Committee approved the full text of the draft resolution.  (See Annex V.)

Also today, the Committee approved a draft resolution that would call on all States parties to respect their obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and on the nuclear-weapon States to accelerate the implementation of the practical steps towards nuclear disarmament that were agreed on at the Treaty’s 2000 Review Conference.

The draft, entitled “Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World:  Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments, would also have the Assembly urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to rescind its announced withdrawal from the Treaty.

The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 5 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, United States), with 13 abstentions.  (See annex II.)

Prior to the approval of the full text, a separate recorded vote was requested on operative paragraph 6, which calls on States parties to spare no effort to achieve universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and urges India, Israel and Pakistan, which are not yet parties to the treaty, to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States, promptly and without conditions.

The Committee voted to retain that paragraph by a recorded vote of 155 in favour to 4 against ( India, Israel, Pakistan, United States), with 2 abstentions ( Bhutan, France).  (See annex I.)

In other action today, the Committee approved a draft resolution on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities, by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel).  (See annex VII.)

Another draft approved today -- by a vote of 154 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions -- would have the Assembly stress the importance of the full and effective implementation of and compliance with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Reduction and transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines, and on Their Destruction.  (See annex VIII.)

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved draft resolutions on:  national legislation on transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods

and technology; confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context; report of the Disarmament Commission; United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean; report of the Conference on Disarmament; and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.

Also on:  the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction; Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects; Objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures; and Verification in all its aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification.

The representative of Hungary made a general statement at the start of action on cluster 2.

Statements in the explanation of votes were made by the representatives of Indonesia, Uruguay, United States, Turkey, Canada, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Pakistan, Israel, Australia, India, United Kingdom, Iran, Colombia, China, France, Sudan, Cuba, Iceland, Morocco, Singapore, Libya, Republic of Korea, Benin, Myanmar and Venezuela.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 1 November, to continue its consideration of all disarmament and security-related draft texts.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its consideration of all draft resolutions and decisions before it.

Action on Draft Texts

The representative of Indonesia said he wished to draw attention to the voting record in Cluster 1 on the draft resolution on follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Use or Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.36).  Indonesia had voted yes, but his vote had been incorrectly recorded, and he requested the Secretariat to make the necessary correction.

The Committee took up a draft resolution on national legislation on transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology (document A/C.1/62/L.12), by which the General Assembly would invite Member States to enact or improve national legislation to exercise control over the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology.  The Assembly would also encourage Member States to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to the Secretary-General on their national legislation, regulations and procedures on this issue, and would request the Secretary-General to make that information accessible to Member States.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

Also acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution on confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context (document A/C.1/62/L.43).  By its terms, the Assembly would urge States to comply strictly with all bilateral, regional and international agreements, including arms control and disarmament agreements, to which they are party and emphasize that the objective of confidence-building measures should be to help strengthen international peace and security and be consistent with the principle of undiminished security at the lowest level of armaments.

By a further term of the text, the Assembly would further encourage the promotion of bilateral and regional confidence-building measures, with the consent and participation of the parties concerned, to avoid conflict and prevent the unintended and accidental outbreak of hostilities.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation said that arms reduction and confidence-building measures, as well as the voluntary exchange of information, would help to strengthen regional peace and security.  Unfortunately, developing confidence-building measures in post-conflict situations was difficult, since there was often a long history of violence at the foundation of such settings.  To forget that, and to support a dialogue to build confidence, was a very complex process, and he called on other delegations to understand that.  He did not wish to accuse anybody, as the delegation of the Republic of Moldova had in its statement.  It was necessary to know how to cooperate and to negotiate.  Bilateral dialogue was needed, rather than accusations.

The representative of Uruguay, speaking about the draft texts in Cluster 7 on the disarmament machinery, said that, as Chair of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, he had a technical correction to this year’s draft resolution on the report of the Commission (document A/C.1/62/L.3), namely, to change the date in operative paragraph 8, to indicate that the Commission would meet in 2008 from 7 to 24 April, instead of from 14 April to 2 May.

Speaking in explanation of vote before action on “L.3”, the representative of the United States said that her country would not participate in the vote.  As it had made clear, it was pleased with some decisions of the Commission, but that body had damaged its credibility by selecting an inappropriate Vice-Chairman.  Also, the United States was not optimistic that the Commission would achieve the expected result.

Then, acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution on the report of the Disarmament Commission (L.3).  By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the Commission as the specialised, deliberative body within the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery that allows for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations on those issues.  It would ask the Commission to continue its work in accordance with its mandate, and, to that end, make every effort to achieve specific recommendations on the items on its agenda, taking into account the adopted “Ways and means to enhance the functioning of the Disarmament Commission”.

Further, the Assembly would recommend that the Commission continue the consideration of recommendations for achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons.  It would also ask it to meet for a period not exceeding three weeks during 2008, from 7 to 24 April.

Also without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (A/C.1/62/L.4).  Under that text, the Assembly would appeal to Member States, in particular those within the Latin American and Caribbean region, and to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make and increase voluntary contributions to strengthen the Regional Centre and its programme of activities.

The Assembly would invite all States of the region to continue to take part in the Centre’s activities and encourage the Centre to further develop activities in the area of disarmament and development.  It would request the Secretary-General to provide the Centre with all necessary support so that it might need to carry out its programme of activities in accordance with its mandate.

Next, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/61/L.11), also without a vote.

By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the role of the Conference as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community and call upon it to further intensify consultations and explore possibilities with a view to reaching an agreement on a programme of work.  It would welcome the decision of the Conference to request its current President and the incoming President to conduct consultations during the intersessional period and, if possible, to make recommendations, taking into account all relevant proposals, past, present and future, including those submitted as documents of the Conference, views presented and discussions held, and to endeavour to keep the membership of the Conference informed, as appropriate, of their consultations.

The Assembly would request all States members of the Conference to cooperate with the current President and successive Presidents in their efforts to guide the Conference to the early commencement of substantive work in its 2008 session.

The Committee then proceeded to a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/62/L.35), by which the Assembly would reaffirm its strong support for the forthcoming operation and further strengthening of the Centre and underline the importance of the Kathmandu process as a powerful vehicle for the development of the practice of region-wide security and disarmament dialogue.  It would express its appreciation for the continuing political support and voluntary financial contributions to the Centre, which are essential for its continued operation.

Further, the Assembly would appeal to Member States, in particular those within the Asia-Pacific region, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions, the only resources of the Regional Centre, to strengthen the programme of activities of the Centre and the implementation thereof.  It would request the Secretary-General, taking note of paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/76 D of 15 December 1994, to provide the Regional Centre with the necessary support, within existing resources, in carrying out its programme of activities.

The resolution would welcome the signing of the host country agreement and the memorandum of understanding by the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs and the Permanent Representative of Nepal on 20 July 2007 for the relocation of the Centre to Kathmandu, and request the Secretary-General to expedite the necessary preparations with a view to ensuring physical operation of the Centre from Kathmandu within six months to enable it to function effectively. 

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

Explaining his vote on “L.11”, the representative of Turkey said he had been encouraged by the “structured and substantive” discussions during the last meeting of the Conference on Disarmament.  The present draft resolution contained a reference to the expansion of the Conference’s membership.  Turkey believed that expanding the membership was “not a priority” and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.  The last preambular paragraph of the present resolution, therefore, should not be construed as a change in Turkey’s well-known position.

Explaining his position on “L.3” on the Disarmament Commission and “L.11” on the Conference on Disarmament, the representative of Canada said that, while he had joined consensus on “L.3”, Canada had continuing disappointment with the state of the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery, including the Disarmament Commission.  The Commission was a deliberative body mandated to discuss and make recommendations to the General Assembly.  It had done good work in the past.  The time for deliberative work on nuclear non-proliferation, among other concerns, was long past due.   Canada called on all Member States to work together in a spirit of compromise, in order to arrive at concrete recommendations.

Canada had also joined the consensus on “L.11”, he noted, but expressed disappointment at the deadlock in achieving a programme of work in the Conference.  His country found it deeply regrettable that three Conference members had taken positions against joining others on the Conference presidential draft decision L.1.   Canada was hopeful that the Conference’s work would end in success in 2008.  Canada reiterated its urgent call on the Conference member States opposed to adoption of presidential draft decision L.1to reconsider their positions.  The lack of progress in that body continued to be “an embarrassment”.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union on the draft resolution concerning the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/C.1/62/L.28), the representative of Portugal said the Treaty’s entry into force was of utmost importance, and he called on the “annex II” States to sign and ratify it as early as possible.  The European Union had conducted an extensive lobbying campaign to promote the universalization of that Treaty, and would continue to do so. 

He said he appreciated the work of the Preparatory Commission and, therefore, was concerned about the failure of some States signatories to meet their financial commitments.  He called on all States to meet their financial obligations in full.  Pending the Treaty’s entry into force, he urged all States to abide by the nuclear weapons test moratorium, and urged full support for draft resolution “L.28”.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he resented operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” (document A/C.1/62/L.9).  His country’s “re-entry” into the Non-Proliferation Treaty should be considered only after all pending issues, especially the end of hostile acts against it.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea intended to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world.  The Non-Proliferation Treaty had been misused for executing a hostile policy towards his country, jeopardizing its national interests, and leading it to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  He, therefore, requested a recorded vote on the resolution, adding that he would vote against it.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments (document A/C.1/62/L.9), which would have the Assembly continue to emphasize the central role of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its universality in achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, calling on all States parties to respect their obligations, and reiterating its call upon the nuclear-weapon States to accelerate the implementation of the practical steps towards nuclear disarmament that were agreed on at the 2000 Review Conference. 

The draft would have the Assembly urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to rescind its announced withdrawal from the Treaty.  The Assembly would recognize the vital importance of the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty to the achievement of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-third session the item entitled “towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments”.

Prior to acting on the draft resolution as a whole, a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 6, which reads “Again calls upon all States parties to spare no effort to achieve the universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and urges India, Israel and Pakistan, which are not yet parties to the Treaty, to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States promptly and without conditions”.

The Committee voted to retain that paragraph by a recorded vote of 155 in favour to 4 against ( India, Israel, Pakistan, United States), with 2 abstentions ( Bhutan, France).  (For details of the vote, please see annex I.)

The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 5 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, United States), with 13 abstentions.  (See annex II.)

The Committee next turned to the resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/62/L.27), by which the Assembly would welcome the continued contribution that the Antarctic Treaty and the existing nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties are making towards freeing the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas covered by those treaties from nuclear weapons and call upon all concerned States to continue to work together in order to facilitate adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties by all relevant States that have not yet adhered to them.

The Assembly would affirm its conviction of the important role of nuclear-weapon-free zones in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and in extending the areas of the world that are nuclear-weapon free, and, with particular reference to the responsibilities of the nuclear-weapon States, call upon all States to support the process of nuclear disarmament and to work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons.

First, the Committee acted on the last three words of operative paragraph 6, which reads, “and South Asia”, retaining those by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 2 against (India, Pakistan), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Myanmar, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States).  (See annex III.)

The Committee then voted to retain operative paragraph 6 as a whole by 156 in favour to 1 against ( India), with 8 abstentions ( Bhutan, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States).  (See annex IV.) 

The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Russian Federation).  (See annex V.) 

The draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/62/L.28), would have the Assembly stress the vital importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and without conditions, to achieve the earliest entry into force of that Treaty.  It would also urge all States not to carry out nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, to maintain their moratoriums in this regard and to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty, while stressing that these measures do not have the same permanent and legally binding effect as the entry into force of the Treaty.

In addition, the text would call for a peaceful solution of the nuclear issues on the Korean peninsula through successful implementation of the Joint Statement, and the initial and second-phase actions to implement it, agreed upon in the framework of the six-party talks.

The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 4 abstentions ( Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria).  (See annex VI.)

Explaining his vote, the representative of Syria said his country had abstained because it had repeatedly reaffirmed that a treaty as comprehensive as that could not ignore the legitimate concern of non-nuclear-weapon States, which represented the majority of States in the world.  Those States had not been given guarantees of non-use of nuclear weapons against them, nor had they been given access to peaceful use of nuclear technologies for their development.

In addition, he said, the text of the Treaty did not include obligations of the nuclear Powers to eradicate their stockpiles, nor did not affirm the importance of the universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The text of the Test-Ban Treaty was limited to a ban on nuclear weapons tests, without banning laboratory nuclear tests or qualitative developments.

Syria looked at those essential gaps with great concern since the only State in the Middle East that had such weapons was trying to develop them quantitatively and qualitatively and had refused to put its facilities under the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), he said.  That situation threatened all endeavours to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region. 

Also speaking about that draft, the representative of Venezuela said that, as a State party to the Test-Ban Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Venezuela had voted in favour of “L.28”, based on its commitment to those instruments and to nuclear disarmament, she said.  While Venezuela rejected nuclear testing, it believed the existence of nuclear weapons was a threat to the survival of mankind.  She favoured the destruction of existing nuclear weapons, and called for the implementation of the recommendations made at the 2000 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The representative of Pakistan said he had abstained in the vote on “L.9” as a whole, on a nuclear-weapon-free world, and had voted against operative paragraph 6, urging India, Pakistan and Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty promptly and without conditions.  The decision to call for Pakistan’s accession to that Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon State had left him with no other option.  Pakistan had not been the first country in South Asia to conduct a nuclear test, and it had conducted its test to restore strategic stability in the region.

On “L.27”, concerning a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, he said that operative paragraph 6 failed to acknowledge the reality on the ground.  Specifically, the insertion of “ South Asia” in the resolution ran counter to the realities on the ground in the region.

Finally, on “L.28”, on the Test-Ban Treaty, he had voted for the resolution, and his country had observed a moratorium on nuclear testing.  He would have liked the resolution to reflect the “unilateral moratorium”, which Pakistan was observing on further nuclear testing. 

The representative of Israel said the importance of the Test-Ban Treaty was especially pronounced in light of recent nuclear non-compliance in the Middle East.  Israel had adopted export control legislation and had joined the global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism.  Israel had also played a major role in developing the Test-Ban Treaty verification regime.  More work remained to be done in that area.  Pending the entry into force of the Test-Ban Treaty, he called for all States to commit not to carry out test explosions, and to complete the verification regime. 

The representative of Australia, explaining his vote on “L.9”, said that Australia continued to support the draft resolution, but that the draft failed to acknowledge the progress that had been made in reducing nuclear arsenals.  His country hoped that that would be taken into account in the future.

The representative of India, also explaining his vote on “L.9”, said that his country remained committed to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.  It shared the view that nuclear disarmament could be achieved through credible timebound and verifiable nuclear disarmament.   India had voted against the draft resolution because of the call for India to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The draft negated rules of customary international law that acceptance of a treaty should be based on the principle of free consent.

On “L.27”, while recognising well established principles, India felt that the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia had no greater validity than establishment of similar zones in other regions where they did not exist. India had abstained on the vote on the whole draft resolution and had voted “no” on the last three words of operative paragraph 6.

Explaining his vote on “L.9”, the representative of the United Kingdom said that the text contained a great deal that his country would be happy to endorse, and he wanted the record amended on the vote on operative paragraph 6, in order to record a “yes” vote from the United Kingdom. 

He said the United Kingdom was moving away from its past opposition to “L.9”, but it was still unable to support the text as a whole, because the draft gave “little or no” recognition to disarmament efforts undertaken since the cold war.  His country would soon have arrived at a 75 per cent reduction of its nuclear capability, and by 2012, the United States would be at one third of its cold war capability.  The Russian Federation and France were also carrying out cuts.  In calling for “urgent progress”, the resolution conveyed the impression that little or nothing had been done.  That was not the case. 

A balanced text would highlight the revelation of clandestine nuclear programmes, and the failure of one country to adhere to United Nations Security Council resolutions, he added. 

The representative of Iran then took the floor to speak about the draft resolution on the Test-Ban Treaty (L.28).  Iran wanted to ban all nuclear tests, and so he had voted “yes” on that resolution.

A decade after the adoption of that Treaty, he said it was time to ask whether a comprehensive ban had been achieved, and whether a freeze on the development of new types of weapons had been accomplished.  Given the development of new weapons outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, especially in the Middle East, he said the situation was not promising.

He noted that the nuclear Powers that had voted against resolution “L.28” had upgraded their arsenals, ensuring that the “nuclear difference” would continue in years to come, and calling into question the vision of systematic nuclear disarmament.  The current draft resolution could be improved to reflect the above concerns.

The representative of Colombia said that the country had abstained on “L.28” on the Test-Ban Treaty.  The Secretariat was aware of the constitutional reason that had prevented Colombia from becoming party to that Treaty, but it reaffirmed its commitment to the instrument.  Hopefully, a solution to that situation would be found to enable Colombia to deposit its instruments of ratification as soon as possible.

The representative of China explained his country’s votes on “L.9”, “L.30” and “L.40”.   China had always stood for complete and total destruction of nuclear weapons.  It endorsed the purpose and major content of those resolutions towards a nuclear-weapon-free world at an early date.  However, China still felt that the texts required some improvement.  The measures in “L.30” were not feasible.  That was why China had abstained from the vote on that draft.

The representative of France, on behalf of the United States, United Kingdom and France, took the floor to discuss “L.27” on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere.  He emphasized the importance of nuclear-weapon-free zones, when supported by all States in the region and by nuclear-weapon States.  He was prepared to resume consultations with interested States parties on such a zone. However, in the draft resolution, he said it was contradictory to simultaneously propose a nuclear-weapon-free zone, which would be largely composed of the sea, and to say that that was compatible with international law on freedom of navigation on the high seas.  He wondered whether the true object of the resolution was not to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone covering the high seas.  Because that ambiguity had not been clarified, he had voted against the resolution.

The representative of Sudan took the floor to add his name to the list of co-sponsors to the following drafts:  “L.7”; “L.21”; “L.23”; “L.26”; and “L.40”.

Next, the representative of Hungary orally revised the draft resolution on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention) (document A/C.1/62/L.37).  He removed the last eight words of preambular paragraph 5.

The new paragraph would now read, “Welcoming also the successful outcome of the Sixth Review Conference, which adopted a Final Document after a gap of ten years, conducted a consensus article-by-article review of the operation of the Convention, reached decisions on the continuity of the intersessional meetings of experts and States parties.”

By the terms of that draft text, the Assembly would note with satisfaction the increase in the number of States parties to the Convention and reaffirm the call upon all signatory States that have not yet ratified it to do so without delay, and calls upon those States that have not signed the Convention to become parties thereto at an early date, thus contributing to the achievement of universal adherence to the Convention.

The draft resolution was approved, as orally amended, without a vote.

The representative of Cuba said an arms race in outer space would invoke serious dangers for international peace and security.  It was necessary, therefore, to have international confidence-building measures on the issue, leading to international cooperation.  He called for measures, including prior notification, verification and follow-up.  He fully supported “L.41” on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities, and was one of the resolution’s co-sponsors.

The Committee draft resolution on outer space activities (document A/C.1/62/L.41) would have the Assembly take note of the report of the Secretary-General containing concrete proposals from Member States on international outer space transparency and confidence-building measures and invite all Member States to continue to submit to the Secretary-General concrete proposals on international outer space transparency and confidence-building measures in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

The draft resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel).  (See annex VII.)

The representative of China said his vote had not been reflected on the board.  He had voted “yes” on that resolution.

The representative of Iceland said that he had also voted “yes” on the resolution, and wished the Committee to take due note of that.

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (document A/C.1/62/ L.32).

According to the draft, the Assembly would call upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and the Protocols, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality.  It would further call upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character.  The Assembly would welcome the decision of the Third Review Conference to establish a compliance mechanism in order to promote compliance and the full implementation of the obligations contained in the Convention and its annexed Protocols, as well as the decision to establish a sponsorship programme within the framework of the Convention, and encourage States to contribute to the programme.

The Committee next took up a draft resolution on the Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (document A/C.1/62/L.39), which would have the Assembly stress the importance of the full and effective implementation of and compliance with the Convention, including through the continued implementation of the Nairobi Action Plan 2005–2009.  It would renew its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine risk education programmes and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed or stockpiled throughout the world.

The draft resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions.  (See annex VIII.)

The representative of Morocco welcomed the approval of the draft resolution on the Mine Ban Convention (L.39) by a significant majority, including by States not party to the treaty.  While Morocco, for reasons of national security, was not a State party to that Convention, it had voted in favour of the resolution.  His country, committed to the goal of the Mine Ban Convention, had applied a number of its important provisions “de facto”.  Morocco did not produce, transfer, import or export anti-personnel mines.  It had not imported anti-personnel mines for a long time before the Convention even entered force.  It had also voluntarily submitted a report on actions it had carried out in accordance with the treaty.  Plus, Morocco had ratified Protocol 2 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 

The representative of Singapore said his position on anti-personnel mines was “clear and open”.  It had declared an indefinite moratorium on the export of those weapons.  At the same time, the right to self-defence could not be disregarded, and a blanket ban on anti-personnel mines might not be useful.

The representative of Libya said he had abstained from voting on that draft resolution, although he was convinced of the “noble human” objectives of the Mine Ban Convention.  He was worried, however, that that Convention did not deal with old mines that had been used by major Powers in the First and Second World Wars in several countries, including in Libya.  The Convention had not dealt with the responsibilities of those countries in that regard, or with the issue of compensation.  Libya had participated in meetings of States parties to the Mine Ban Convention as an observer, and he hoped that Libya’s concerns, voiced repeatedly, would be taken into account.

Also explaining his vote on “L.39”, the representative of Pakistan said that landmines continued to play a significant security role in many States.  Pakistan was committed to a ban on those weapons in a manner that took into account the legitimate security requirements of States.  With a border that was not protected by any natural obstacles, landmines formed part of his country’s protection strategy.   Pakistan could not join the Mine Ban Treaty until the complete elimination of mines was viable.

He added that Pakistan was party to Protocol 2, which regulated the use of landmines and it continued to implement that Protocol.  Efforts were also under way for the ratification of Protocol 5.   Pakistan, as part of United Nations peacekeeping efforts in several affected countries, had actively contributed to mine clearance operations.  The country also enjoyed a unique record of clearing all minefields after the three wars in Asia.  It was making every effort to ensure that mines in military inventory would never become a danger to civilians.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, also speaking on “L.39”, said that his country sympathised with the spirit and objective of that Convention, but owing to the unique security situation in the Korean peninsula, it was unable to accede to it at present.  He, therefore, had abstained from the vote.  The country was committed to mitigating the effects of landmines and had contributed to mine assistance programmes.  Its annual contribution to those programmes had increased annually.  It also enforced tight controls over landmines.

The representative of Cuba said that, as on previous occasions, Cuba had abstained from voting on “L.39”.  Cuba agreed with the humanitarian concerns associated with the irresponsible use of anti-personnel mines, and was a State party to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), including to Protocol 2, concerning landmines.  At the same time, it was well known that, for more than 47 years, Cuba had been subjected to a policy of aggression by a military super Power.  Therefore, Cuba could not renounce its right to use such weapons in its legitimate self-defence.

The representative of India said his country had ratified Protocol 2 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and had discontinued production of non-detectable anti-personnel mines, observing a moratorium on their transfer.  India had also organized camps in Afghanistan for providing prosthetic limbs to landmine victims in Afghanistan.  It supported the approach in Protocol 2, which allowed for legitimate self-defence, especially for States with long borders.  India was not party to the Mine Ban Convention.

The representative of Benin said that he had voted in favour of “L.39”, because Benin was a State party to the Mine Ban Convention.  His country was particularly sensitive to the needs of people living in affected areas, and supported a process towards the complete elimination of landmines arsenals.  With the assistance of France, Benin had established a training centre on de-mining post-conflict operations.  That regional centre allowed all African countries to benefit from expertise in mine clearance.  He appealed to the international community, and the donor community, to contribute to the centre, with the eventual goal of ridding the world of mines.

The representative of Myanmar said he had abstained in the vote on “L.39”.   Myanmar did not export or transfer anti-personnel mines.  It was not a party to the Mine Ban Convention, but it respected actions taken by that Convention’s States parties.  The use of landmines in Myanmar was under strict control and was only for self-defence.

The Committee next took up a draft resolution on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/62/L.33), by which the Assemblywould call upon Member States to report annually, by 30 April, to the Secretary-General their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data are available.  It would also request the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts on the basis of equitable geographical representation to review the operation and further development of the Standardized Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures, commencing in 2010, taking into account the views expressed by Member States on the subject and the reports of the Secretary-General on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures, and to transmit the report of the group of experts to the General Assembly for consideration at its sixty-sixth session.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on verification in all its aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification (document A/C.1/62/L.47), approving it without a vote. 

Under that draft text, the Assembly would take note of the report of the Panel of Government Experts on verification in all its aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification, transmitted by the Secretary-General on 15 August 2007 and request the Secretary-General to give the report the widest possible circulation.

The representative of Cuba took the floor to explain his position on “L.33”.  As in previous years, Cuba had joined the consensus on the text.  At the same

time, holding a new governmental working group on that issue was not completely justified.  He was concerned by the growing trend to establish working groups of experts in the First Committee.  Priority must be given to discussions and to open, transparent negotiations.  Expert groups had a high cost and took away from money which could be devoted to other priorities.  Moreover, the group was closed, with the experts of only a few countries participating.  Any possible recommendation considered by that group in 2010 could not change the voluntary nature of the proposed instrument.

Concerning “L.47”, on verification in all its aspects, he said that Cuba had joined the consensus, but certain recommendations had not been taken into account.  Cuba would study the report submitted by the group of governmental experts under General Assembly resolution 59/60.

The representative of Venezuela said that she had joined consensus on “L.33”, as in previous years.  It was a positive initiative among the set of confidence-building measures in disarmament efforts.  On the new group of governmental experts, it was important that its work be objective and non-discriminatory, she said.

The representative of Pakistan, explaining his vote on “L.47”, said, in 2004, his country had gone along with the resolution on a panel of experts even though he had not been, and was still, not convinced that any such panel would make a contribution to verification.   Pakistan hoped that adequate representation of all relevant countries would be ensured in any future work on that issue.  Verification was very important for countries on the treaties for which they were a party.  However, that concept was integral to disarmament agreements and had no independent existence.  As such, it could not be promoted in a vacuum.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free World

Operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” (document A/C.1/62/L.9) was retained by a recorded vote of 155 in favour to 4 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Israel, Pakistan, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, France.

Absent:  Benin, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mozambique, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Kingdom.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free World

The draft resolution as a whole entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” (document A/C.1/62/L.9) was approved by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to 5 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Australia, Bhutan, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Micronesia (Federated States of), Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Benin, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The last three words “and South Asia” of operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/62/L.27) was retained by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 2 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Pakistan.

Abstain:  Bhutan, France, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Myanmar, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Benin, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mauritius, Monaco, Mozambique, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

Operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/62/L.27) was retained by a recorded vote of 156 in favour to 1 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India.

Abstain:  Bhutan, France, Israel, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Benin, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution as a whole on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/62/L.27) was approved by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 3 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, 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, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Pakistan, Russian Federation.

Absent:  Benin, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

The draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/62/L.28) was approved by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria.

Absent:  Benin, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

ANNEX VII

Vote on Transparency in Outer Space

The draft resolution on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities (document A/C.1/62/L.41) was approved by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, 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, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Israel.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Kiribati, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Mine Ban Convention

The draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (document A/C.1/62/L.39) was approved by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Syria, United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record