CONCERNED ABOUT HIGH-ALERT STATUS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD CALL

FOR DECREASE IN OPERATIONAL READINESS, BY NEW DRAFT APPROVED IN FIRST COMMITTEE

Recognizing Threat to Civil Aviation, Security Posed by ‘MANPADS’ Illicit Use,

Transfer, Brokering, Assembly Would Stress Need for Effective National Controls

Concerned that, notwithstanding the end of the cold war, several thousand nuclear weapons remained on high alert, ready to be launched within minutes, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) today approved a new draft resolution that would have the General Assembly call for further practical steps to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems, with a view to ensuring that all nuclear weapons were removed from high alert status.

Originally sponsored by Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden and Switzerland, that new draft –- one of 13 texts approved today -- would have the Assembly recognize that the maintenance of nuclear weapons systems at a high level of readiness increased the risk of the use of such weapons, including the unintentional or accidental use, which would have catastrophic consequences.

The Committee approved the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 124 in favour, to 3 against ( France, United Kingdom, United States), with 34 abstentions.  (For details of the vote, see annex II.)

The Assembly, taking into consideration the potential harmful effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium on human health and the environment, would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States and relevant international organizations on the subject and to submit a report to the Assembly at its next session.

Sponsored by Indonesia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 6 against (Czech Republic, Israel, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States), with 35 abstentions.  (See annex VII.)

Recognizing the threat to civil aviation, peacekeeping, crisis management and security posed by the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to and use of man-portable air defence systems (“MANPADS”), the Assembly would stress the importance of effective and comprehensive national controls on the production, stockpiling, transfer and brokering of those weapons to prevent the illicit trade in and unauthorized access to and use of such weapons, according to a draft resolution adopted today without a vote.

Also recognizing that illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons was a serious problem that the international community should address urgently, the Assembly would call upon all States to implement the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, among others, through the provision of information to the Secretary-General on the name and contact information of the national points of contact and on national marking practices related to markings used to indicate country of manufacture and/or country of import, as applicable.

The Committee today recommended that draft resolution to the Assembly for adoption, by a recorded vote of 165 in favour, to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (annex III).

Also today, the Committee took action on a draft resolution that would reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, and urge the participation of all interested States in such negotiations.  That text was approved by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 4 against ( Israel, Marshall Islands, United Kingdom, United States), with 51 abstentions (annex IV).

By a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 2 abstentions (France, Israel), the Assembly would urge the international community to devote part of the resources made available by the implementation of disarmament and arms limitation agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the ever-widening gap between developed and developing countries, according to another draft resolution approved today (annex IX).

Recorded votes were also taken to approve draft resolutions on the following:  the Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (annex I);observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (annex V); implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (annex VI); developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (annex VIII); and convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (annex X).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a resolution on United Nations Regional Centres for peace and disarmament.  Also without a vote, it approved a draft decision on review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security.

The representatives of Indonesia, Australia, and Cuba made general statements at beginning of action on the various clusters of disarmament and security items under which the draft texts are grouped by the Committee.

Statements in explanation of votes were made by the representatives of Cuba, India, United States, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Australia, Israel, Canada, France, China, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Argentina, Japan, Ukraine, and Mauritania.

The representative of Australia spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Friday, 2 November, to continue its consideration of all draft resolutions and decisions before it.

Background

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

Action on Drafts

The representative of Indonesia, on behalf of the sponsors of the draft resolution on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Bangkok) (document A/C.1/62/L.19/Rev.1), said that the Treaty aimed to contribute to efforts in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, assess the rights of countries in the region to nuclear energy, and seek negative security assurances.  In order to achieve those objectives, cooperation among nuclear-weapon-free zones and with nuclear-weapon States was essential.  In tabling the resolution, the sponsors were seeking universal support for the zone.  The assistance of some nuclear-weapon States in the resolution had been appreciated, and the sponsors hoped the draft would receive the Committee’s wide support.

Speaking before the vote, the representative of Cuba said he welcomed the submission of that draft.  The establishment of the nuclear-weapon free zone had been a positive step and an important measure towards strengthening nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects.  It was essential that the nuclear-weapon States provide negative security assurances to all States in the region.  Cuba supported the draft resolution.

Addressing his remarks to the draft resolution on decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems (document A/C.1/62/L.29), the representative of India said that, two days ago, the First Committee had approved another resolution on the same topic.  Today’s resolution reflected the belief that a process of delegitimization of nuclear weapons would lead to their eventual destruction.  Since the two resolutions had similar objectives and shared a high degree of congruence, and since a few of the sponsors of “L.29” had not voted on the resolution in favour of reducing nuclear danger, he called on those States to reconsider their positions.  India would, of course, vote in favour of “L.29”.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (document A/C.1/62/L.19/Rev.1), approving it by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 4 abstentions (Andorra, France, Israel, United Kingdom).  (For details of the vote, see annex I.)

By the terms of that draft, the General Assembly would encourage States parties to the Treaty to work towards resuming direct consultations with the five nuclear-weapon States to resolve comprehensively, in accordance with the objectives and principles of the Treaty, existing outstanding issues on a number of provisions of the Treaty and its Protocol.  The Assembly would also encourage nuclear-weapon States to continue to work constructively, with a view to ensuring the early accession of the nuclear-weapon States to the Protocol to the Treaty.  It would underline the value of enhancing and implementing further ways and means of cooperation among nuclear-weapon-free zones, and would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.

According to the draft resolution on Decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems (document A/C.1/62/L.29), the Assembly, concerned that, notwithstanding the end of the cold war, several thousand nuclear weapons remain on high alert, ready to be launched within minutes,would call for the taking of further practical steps to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems, with a view to ensuring that all nuclear weapons are removed from high alert status.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 124 in favour to 3 against ( France, United Kingdom, United States), with 34 abstentions (annex II).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Cuba said that he had supported the draft resolution because his country believed that it was an initiative in the right direction in the effort to reduce the unacceptable threat posed by nuclear weapons.   Cuba supported all initiatives that would help achieve nuclear disarmament, but today’s text had clear limitations.

He said that reducing operational readiness constituted an interim measure towards nuclear disarmament, which needed to be implemented urgently by the nuclear-weapon States.  Those measures, however, could not replace necessary cuts and the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  That approach, which was shared by the immense majority of States, was not clearly reflected in the draft resolution, despite proposals submitted by Cuba to the sponsors on that point.

Cuba, however, had decided to respond positively to the request of the sponsors and had not insisted on those proposals, he said.  A vote in favour of the draft, however, could not be interpreted as giving up the interest in strengthening that resolution.   Cuba would continue to work towards that goal.

The representative of the United States said she had voted “no” on “L.19”.  One of the main objectives of that resolution was to increase dialogue between nuclear-weapon States and parties to the Bangkok Treaty.  Such discussions had already taken place.  Involvement of the general membership of the United Nations in that issue was neither needed nor desirable.

On “L.29”, he said that the United States disagreed in principle with the assertion that the current level of readiness increased the likelihood of use of such weapons.  The United States did not rely on launch-on warning systems.  There were multiple safeguards against accidental launches.

As long as nuclear weapons existed, it was necessary to keep some forces at some level of alert, he said.  It was necessary for the United States to remain able to protect its security and that of its allies.  Resolution “L.29” was based on an erroneous premise, and so the United States could not vote in its favour.

The representative of the United Kingdom, also explaining his vote on “L.29”, said he had chosen to vote against the resolution because the country disagreed with its basic premise, namely, that the world was at risk because many nuclear weapons were at high levels of alert.  The United Kingdom’s systems were neither on high alert nor on “launch upon warning” status.

He said that the United Kingdom did believe that there remained unnecessarily large numbers of nuclear weapons in the world.  He was further concerned that a fissile material cut-off treaty had yet to be negotiated.  The United Kingdom shared the concern of many others about the threat of further nuclear proliferation.  Collective efforts should be exerted on those challenges.

The representative of Pakistan said he had voted in favour of “L.19/Rev.1”, because Pakistan supported the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States in the region.  Pakistan also supported negative security assurances.

He added that preambular paragraph 1 of that resolution referred to two resolutions on which Pakistan had abstained.  Therefore, Pakistan’s support for “L.19/Rev.1” should not be seen as support for those two resolutions.

On “L.29”, he said he had voted in favour of the text, and he especially supported preambular paragraph 5, which welcomed the reaffirmation of South-East Asian States that their nuclear-weapon-free zone should continue to play a pivotal role in the area of confidence-building, preventive diplomacy and approaches to conflict resolution.  He underlined that the notion that decreasing alert levels must be based on reciprocity.  Pakistan had proposed the establishment of a strategic restraint regime in South Asia, and he hoped the sponsors of “L.29” would support that proposal.

Also discussing “L.29”, the representative of Australia said that his country supported the steps envisaged in the draft resolution, but felt that those needed to take place in ways that promoted stability and security.  There had been no consensus on that issue with regard to the draft resolution.  Thus, his country had abstained from the vote.

The representative of Israel, explaining his country’s vote on “L.19/Rev.1”, said that the nuclear-weapon-free zones should emanate through freely negotiated agreements by States in the region concerned.  Such zones could not be imposed from outside and could not be established before the environment was ripe.  That was why his country had abstained from the vote.

The representative of India, also explaining his vote on “L.19/Rev.1”, said that his country had voted in its favour.  Given the global dimensions of nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapon-free zones should be considered an interim measure in the effort towards nuclear disarmament.   India respected the sovereign choice of States to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of voluntary agreements freely arrived at.  As a responsible nuclear-weapon State, India had given an unambiguous assurance that it would respect the South-East Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone.

The representative of Canada explained his abstention on “L.29”.  Reducing operational readiness remained important, and he had voted in favour of “L.30”, on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as well, calling for the reduction of the operational status of nuclear weapon systems.  On “L.29”, he was pleased that it referred to steps already taken by nuclear-weapon States.  The measures taken by those States, and their recognition by the international community, were important.  At the same time, deterrence remained an important element of international security and a fundamental part of the deterrence policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  While he encouraged concrete measures to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons, such steps must be taken in such a way that promoted international stability and were based on the principle of undiminished security for all.  He hoped active discussion on the issue would continue.

The representative of France, speaking also on behalf of the United Kingdom on “L.19/Rev.1”, said that both delegations had abstained in the vote.  A regional approach was needed on nuclear disarmament.  They, therefore, supported the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, and both the United Kingdom and France were parties to the protocols of several relevant treaties.  In nuclear-weapon-free zones, the United Kingdom and France considered that submission by the Asian countries of “L.19/Rev.1” had demonstrated their willingness to resume dialogue, and they would like to see a resumption of dialogue.

On “L.29”, he said that France was not against reducing operational alerts, if security conditions were met, and his country had already taken important measures in that regard.  The present text asked for France to go even further than it had already gone, however, and that could not be done.

The representative of China said his country respected and supported efforts to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones.  In view of that, China had signed and ratified the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlateloco), the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free zone Treaty (Treaty of Raratonga), and other relevant instruments.  China had maintained friendly relations with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and supported its efforts to establish nuclear-weapon-free zone in South- East Asia.  China had also reached consensus with them on protocols on that issue, and it hoped those nations would reach agreement with the other nuclear-weapon States on that issue.

On “L.29”, he said his country supported interim measures for nuclear disarmament and was willing to implement such measures, when appropriate.  However, any measures should be guided by the spirit of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, maintaining global stability and undiminished security.  The most realistic measures, at present, would be to have all nuclear-weapon States agree not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and not to use nuclear weapons, and not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.  As yet, China was the only “nuclear country” that had made such a commitment, and he called on other nuclear-weapon States to follow suit.

He added that different views existed on the effectiveness of reducing the operational levels of nuclear weapon systems, and so China did not support the draft resolution.

Concerning the draft resolution on prevention of the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to man-portable air defence systems (“MANPADS”) (document A/C/1/62/L.38/Rev.1), the representative of Australia said his delegation had considered seeking a deferral of the draft when it learned that a vote would be called for.  This year’s preambular paragraph 10 had called for work on airport vulnerability assessment.  Such an assessment was relevant to protecting civil aviation from “MANPADS” attacks, and everybody stood to benefit from such airport vulnerability assessments.  Australia was not convinced of the reason for deleting that phrase from the draft.  Australia, then introduced a revised preambular paragraph 10 to remove the phrase “including through airport vulnerability assessments”.  He hoped that the draft could now be adopted by consensus.

According to the draft resolution, the Assembly would emphasize the importance of the full implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects and urge Member States to support current international, regional and national efforts to combat and prevent the illicit transfer of man-portable air defence systems and unauthorized access to and use of such weapons.

The Assembly would also stress the importance of effective and comprehensive national controls on the production, stockpiling, transfer and brokering of man-portable air defence systems to prevent the illicit trade in and unauthorized access to and use of such weapons, their components and training and instruction materials, and encourage Member States to enact or improve legislation, regulations, procedures and stockpile management practices and to assist other States, at their request, to exercise effective control over access to and transfer of man-portable air defence systems so as to prevent the illicit brokering and transfer of, and unauthorized access to and use of, such weapons.

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

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/62/L.49/Rev.1), by which the Assembly would call upon all States to implement the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, among others, through the provision of information to the Secretary-General on the name and contact information of the national points of contact and on national marking practices related to markings used to indicate country of manufacture and/or country of import, as applicable.

The Assembly would decide that, in conformity with the follow-up to the Programme of Action, the next biennial meeting of States to consider the national, regional and global implementation of the Programme of Action shall be held from 14 to 18 July 2008, in New York, and would further underline that the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects requires concerted efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and that their uncontrolled spread in many regions of the world has a wide range of humanitarian and socio-economic consequences and poses a serious threat to peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development at theindividual, local, national, regional and international levels.

It would also emphasize the need to facilitate the implementation at the national level of the Programme of Action through the strengthening of national coordination agencies or bodies and institutional infrastructure.

The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (annex III).

Speaking after the vote on “L.49/Rev.1”, the representative of the United States said her country remained committed to the implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons.  The United States had upheld its obligations under that agreement, and was willing to continue assistance to other States in implementing it.  However, that did not require additional meetings.  The United States remained consistent with the view that a “perpetual series of meetings” was not necessary and would not advance the purpose of the Action Programme.

The representative of the United Arab Emirates, speaking on behalf of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Comoros, Syria, Mauritania, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Iraq and Djibouti, said she had joined the consensus on “L.38/Rev.1” after the oral amendment was made, and hoped Australia would start negotiations to include all the concerns of all States.

Also explaining his position on “L.38/Rev.1”, the representative of Iran said Iran agreed with the main thrust of the resolution, namely, to prevent unauthorized access to man-portable air defence systems, and so he had joined the consensus.

At the same time, he said, “MANPADS” were primarily used as tools against aerial attacks.  There had recently been a sharp increase in aerial threats against countries, and so the importance of “MANPADS” had also been increased.  States had a legitimate right to use “MANPADS” for security and self-defence, and he was pleased to see that reflected in resolution.

There was a need for implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms, he said.  Iran attached great importance to the principles in the preamble to that Action Programme, and in any discussion of “MANPADS”, those principles should be taken into account.

The representative of Venezuela said that he had voted in favour of draft resolution “L.49”, but his country maintained that the primary responsibility to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons lay with States and the institutions established for that purpose.  It was up to authorities of the States where those weapons were manufactured to take measures to ensure that they were duly marked before proceeding to export or transfer them.  That would help to prevent those weapons being diverted to groups engaged in illegal activities.   International cooperation was essential to complement national efforts, but such cooperation must be without conditions.

The representative of Mexico, also speaking on “L.49”, said that his country had recognized the efforts of the sponsors of that draft to accommodate the many concerns of States.  That had enabled Mexico to join the vote in favour of the draft resolution.  However, in seeking consensus, important elements had been deleted from the text, which had led his country to withdraw from the sponsorship of the resolution.   Mexico rejected manipulation to impose special visions or prevent the clear majority from achieving concrete results.  Consensus should not be used as an equivalent to the veto.  Going to the minimum common denominator where the substance was lost should not be allowed.

The representative of Cuba, endorsing the Non-Aligned Movement’s presentation of a new draft resolution on effects of the use of armaments and ammunition containing depleted uranium (document A/C.1/62/L.18/Rev.1), said that that was the subject of legitimate concern to the international community, and could not be ignored by the First Committee.  The European Parliament was one of several organizations that had expressed concern about that issue, and studies by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Health Organization (WHO) and other groups had shown the necessity of research to determine the long-term effects of armaments and ammunition containing depleted uranium.

He said that he regretted that one group of countries could not adopt the draft resolution.  Among countries who would vote against the resolution, he said many were doing so, not out of conviction, but out of a sense of solidarity with some countries.  However, the adoption of “L.18/Rev.1” would be a major step towards dealing with that important issue.

Then, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the representative of Indonesia introduced six drafts.  The first, on implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (document A/C.1/62/L.16), he said there was still “ample room” to develop measures to realize the objectives of the 1971 Declaration.

Introducing the draft resolution on observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (document A/C.1/62/L.14), he said that the continued sustainability of the global environment was an issue of “utmost importance”.

He next introduced a draft resolution on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/62/L.13).  He said it was critical for the General Assembly to adopt such a resolution, in order to reflect the international community’s continued conviction of the role of the United Nations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.

Tabling the draft text on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/62/L.50), he said the “symbiotic relationship” between disarmament and development could not be denied.

He said, when introducing the draft resolution on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium (document A/C.1/62/L.18/Rev.1), that there was still not a clear understanding of the full impact that fine particles of depleted uranium might have on the human body, and thus the draft reflected a legitimate concern of the international community on the possible impacts of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium.

Finally, tabling the draft decision on review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security (document A/C.1/62/L.52), he reaffirmed the importance of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security adopted by the General Assembly in December 1970.

The representative of Portugal, on behalf of the European Union, said he would vote in favour of the draft resolution on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (L.45).  The relationship between security and telecommunication technology was complex, and the dissemination of telecommunications affected the broader international community.  There was a risk that technology could affect the integrity of the infrastructure of States.  The threat to cyber-security could result from political actors or from non-State actors.  In today’s world, such attacks could severely affect the functioning of a State.  To combat that possibility, States could criminalize attacks on cyber-security.  He called for the establishment of a group of governmental experts on that subject.

The representative of Argentina, explaining his vote before action on the draft text on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium, “L.18/Rev.1”, said his country was a sponsor of the draft text. Argentina felt that any restriction on any system of armaments must be based on solid scientific information.  He took note of the request to the Secretary-General to seek information from States and to submit that to the Assembly.  Once that report was submitted, a group of governmental experts should be set up to consider the subject in comprehensive way.

The representative of the United States said that she would vote “no” on draft resolution “L.18/Rev.1”.  That draft called for action by the Secretary-General, based on the harmful environmental and health effects of depleted uranium.  The draft ignored scientific information on that subject.  That subject had been investigated by the Defence Department, NATO and UNEP, among others, and none of those studies had documented environmental or health effects of those munitions.  Similar resolutions had been presented in the past and had been defeated.  Her country hoped that the Assembly would do so again.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/62/L.13), approving it by a vote of 112 in favour, to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, United Kingdom, United States), with 51 abstentions (annex IV).

That draft resolution would reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, and urge the participation of all interested States in such negotiations.  The draft would also underline the importance of preserving the existing arguments on arms regulation and disarmament and would call on all Member States to renew and fulfil their individual and collective commitments to multilateral cooperation.

Further, the text would request States parties to the relevant instruments on weapons of mass destruction to consult among themselves in resolving their concerns with regard to cases of non-compliance and on implementation, and it would request those States to refrain from resorting or threatening to resort to unilateral actions.  It would also ask the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the promotion of multilateralism in disarmament and non-proliferation and to submit a report to the Assembly at its sixty-third session.

Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution on observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (document A/C.1/62/L.14), approving it by a recorded vote of 162 in favour, to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom) (annex V).

According to that draft text, the Assembly would call upon States to adopt unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral measures so as to contribute to ensuring the application of scientific and technological progress within the framework of international security, disarmament and other related spheres, without detriment to the environment or to its effective contribution to attaining sustainable development.  It would inviteall Member States to communicate to the Secretary-General information on the measures they have adopted to promote the objectives envisaged in the present resolution, and would request the Secretary-General to submit a report containing that information to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session.  Further, the Assembly would decideto include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace (document A/C.1/62/L.16), approving it by a recorded vote of 120 in favour, to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 45 abstentions (annex VI).

By the terms of the text, the Assembly would take note of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean and reiterate its conviction that the participation of all permanent members of the Security Council and the major maritime users of the Indian Ocean in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee is important and would greatly facilitate the development of a mutually beneficial dialogue to advance peace, security and stability in the Indian Ocean region.

Further, the Assembly would request the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee to continue his informal consultations with the members of the Committee and to report through the Committee to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session.  It would further request the Secretary-General to continue to render, within existing resources, all necessary assistance to the Ad Hoc Committee, including the provision of summary records, and would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its sixty-fourth session.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunition containing depleted uranium (document A/C.1/62/L.18/Rev.1), by which the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States and relevant international organizations on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium, and to submit a report on this subject to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session.  The draft would also decide to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-third session the item entitled “Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium”.

The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour, to 6 against (Czech Republic, France, Israel, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States), with 35 abstentions (annex VII).

The representative of Cambodia said he had wished to vote in favour of “L.18”, but his vote had been incorrectly recorded.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/C.1/62/L.45), by which the Assembly would call upon Member States to promote further at multilateral levels the consideration of existing and potential threats in the field of information security, as well as possible measures to limit the threats emerging in this field, consistent with the need to preserve the free flow of information.  It would consider that the purpose of such measures could be served through the examination of relevant international concepts aimed at strengthening the security of global information and telecommunications systems and would invite all Member States to continue to inform the Secretary-General of their views and assessments on questions, including general appreciation of the issues of information security, efforts taken at the national level to strengthen information security and promote international cooperation in this field, and Possible measures that could be taken by the international community to strengthen information security at the global level.

The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (annex VIII).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/62/L.50), approving it by a vote of 166 in favour, to 1 against ( United States), with 2 abstentions ( France, Israel) (annex IX).

That draft resolution would have the Assembly stress the central role of the United Nations in the disarmament-development relationship, and request the Secretary-General to strengthen further the role of the Organization in this field, in particular the high-level Steering Group on Disarmament and Development, in order to ensure continued and effective coordination and close cooperation between the relevant United Nations departments, agencies and sub-agencies.

The Assembly would urge the international community to devote part of the resources made available by the implementation of disarmament and arms limitation agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the ever-widening gap between developed and developing countries.  It would encourage the international community to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to make reference to the contribution that disarmament could provide in meeting them when it reviews its progress towards this purpose in 2006, as well as to make greater efforts to integrate disarmament, humanitarian and development activities.

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft decision on review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security(document A/C.1/62/L.51), by which the Assembly would decide to include that item in the provisional agenda of its sixty-fourth session.

Explaining his vote on “L.50”, the representative of France said that, for several years, the international community had stressed the important link between disarmament and development, and France had not questioned that link.  Neither had it questioned the importance of providing financing for development.  That being said, he continued to abstain on the resolution because of elements within the text that he could not relate to.  In the preamble, it was excessive to describe the relationship between disarmament and development as “symbiotic”.

Further, he said he questioned whether the implementation of disarmament agreements would actually immediately release resources for development, as operative paragraph 3 seemed to suggest.  Implementing agreements had a cost.  For example, chemical disarmament was a long and costly process.  Finally, efforts on disarmament must be general and could not be circumscribed to implementing agreements.  Operative paragraph 3, therefore, must be broadened.

The representative of the United States said she had voted “no” on “L.45”. She agreed that infrastructural security was essential for the securing of global information networks.  The issue to be addressed was how nations could act on that issue.  The United States and 34 other countries had signed the Council of Europe cyber-crimes convention, which all countries could use as a model.  However, information technology did not lend itself to the types of constraints familiar to the disarmament community, since most attacks were not carried out by States, but were criminal in nature.

The representative of Canada, also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand (CANZ), explained his abstention on “L.13”.  He was disappointed that he could not support the resolution, despite a “firm and unwavering” commitment to a multilateral approach.  He could not agree with operative paragraphs 1 and 2 that multilateralism was the core principle in negotiations and resolving concerns in the disarmament and security field.  Effective progress required multilateral, plurilateral, regional, bilateral and unilateral measures working in tandem.  Preambular paragraph 8 recognized that –- so why then did operative paragraphs 1 and 2 suggest that multilateralism was of greater importance?  Any assertion that multilaterally agreed solutions were the only sustainable approach “sold short” the ability of other approaches on disarmament and international security.

The representative of the United Kingdom, on “L.50”, said that his country had been pleased to support that draft text.  However, it did not believe that there was an automatic link between disarmament and development.  Instead, the link between the two was complex.  The draft resolution did not explain fully the complexity of that relationship.  The United Kingdom also noted that, while it was desirable to share the resources made available, in practice, it might not be possible to identify such direct relationship with regard to any resources freed.

The representative of Japan said that, on draft resolution “L.18/Rev.1”, his country recognized that, despite studies on the environmental and human health effects of depleted uranium, no internationally definitive conclusions had been reached.   Japan would continue to follow the efforts to reach such a conclusion.

The representative of Ukraine said that, on “L.16”, she had pressed yes in error.  Her country had meant to abstain on the vote on that draft resolution.

Turning to the question of convening a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, the representative of Indonesia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that its convening was both timely and appropriate because it could set the future course of action and a balanced approach to reaching a new consensus in arms control, disarmament, non-proliferation and related international security matters, including a comprehensive review of the disarmament machinery.  There was also the need to address existing and new threats to international peace and security in a comprehensive and transparent manner, with the broad participation of all Member States.

Additionally, he said, in view of the unprecedented threats and challenges, concerted multilateral efforts under United Nations auspices, which offered the only legitimate and lasting solutions, had become imperative.  The United Nations needed to play a more effective role. There was also a general agreement among Member States on the need to revitalize the United Nations disarmament machinery, including the First Committee, the Disarmament Commission, and the Conference on Disarmament.  They could not afford to allow the agenda to remain deadlocked.  The disarmament agenda, as contained in the Final Document of the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, therefore, should be revived on an urgent basis.  The Movement continued to underline the necessity of working towards convening a fourth special session.

He added, referring to draft resolution “L.15” on the United Nations Regional Centres for peace and disarmament, that the Centres had been instrumental in promoting understanding and cooperation among States in their respective regions in the fields of peace, disarmament and development.  The Movement hoped that all delegations would be able to join in supporting those draft resolutions.

The representative of Mauritania asked that his vote on “L.49” be correctly noted in the record.

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution on United Nations Regional Centres for peace and disarmament (document A/C.1/62/L.15), by which the Assembly would appeal to Member States to make voluntary contributions to the Regional Centres in their respective regions and would emphasize the importance of the activities of the regional disarmament branch of the Office for Disarmament Affairs of the Secretariat.  The Assembly would also request the Secretary-General to provide all necessary support to the regional centres and it would decide to include in the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.

According to the draft resolution on convening the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/62/L.17/Rev.1), the Assembly would establish an open-ended working group to consider the objectives and agenda, including the possible establishment of the preparatory committee, for the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.  It would request the open-ended working group to hold an organizational session in order to set the date for its substantive sessions in 2008 and to submit a report on its work, including possible substantive recommendations, before the end of the current session.  The Assembly would further request the Secretary-General, within existing resources, to provide the open-ended working group with the necessary assistance and services as may be required to discharge its tasks, and would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its next session.

The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 166 in favour, to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (annex X).

Right of Reply

The representative of Australia, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said he wanted to reply to comments about his country’s consultation procedures on “L.38/Rev.1”.  The first consultations on that resolution had been held on the second day of the First Committee’s meeting, and a second consultation had taken place in the second week of meetings.  Australia had also held “countless” bilateral discussions.  Australia had received many proposals to amend the text, and had considered all those suggestions, submitting a revised copy of “L.38” in the last week. 

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Treaty on South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone

The draft resolution on the Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Bangkok Treaty) (document A/C.1/62/L.19/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, 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, 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, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, 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, Moldova, 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 Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, 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, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Andorra, France, Israel, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Decreasing Operational Readiness of Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/62/L.29) was approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 3 against, with 34 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Palau, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Illicit Small Arms, Light Weapons Trade

The draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/62/L.49/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against, with no 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, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, 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 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, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

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

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Multilateralism in Disarmament, Non-Proliferation

The draft resolution on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/62/L.13) was approved by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 4 against, with 51 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lesotho, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Observance of Environmental Norms in Disarmament Agreements

The draft resolution on observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament agreements (document A/C.1/62/L.14) was approved by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 1 against, with 3 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, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, 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, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, 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, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  France, Israel, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lesotho, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Indian Ocean as Zone of Peace

The draft resolution on implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (document A/C.1/62/L.16) was approved by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 3 against, with 45 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey.

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

(END OF ANNEX VI)

ANNEX VII

Vote on Use of Depleted Uranium in Armaments

The draft resolution on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunition containing depleted uranium (document A/C.1/62/L.18/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 6 against, with 35 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Czech Republic, France, Israel, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine.

Absent:  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Information Technology and Security

The draft resolution on developments in the field of information technology in the context of international security (document A/C.1/62/L.45) was approved by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to 1 against, with no 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, 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, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, 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, Mauritius, 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 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, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

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

(END OF ANNEX VIII)

ANNEX IX

Vote on Relationship between Disarmament and Development

The draft resolution on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/62/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 1 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, 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, 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, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, 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, 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 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, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  France, Israel.

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

(END OF ANNEX IX)

ANNEX X

Vote on Fourth Special Session on Disarmament

The draft resolution on convening a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/62/L.17/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 1 against, with no 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, 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, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, 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, Mauritius, 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 Lucia, 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, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record