FIRST COMMITTEE ASKS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ENCOURAGE STATES TO ENSURE IRONCLAD INTERNAL CONTROLS TO PREVENT DIVERSION OF LEGAL WEAPONS TO ILLICIT MARKET

31 October 2008
GA/DIS/3380

FIRST COMMITTEE ASKS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ENCOURAGE STATES TO ENSURE IRONCLAD INTERNAL CONTROLS TO PREVENT DIVERSION OF LEGAL WEAPONS TO ILLICIT MARKET

31 October 2008
General Assembly
GA/DIS/3380
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-third General Assembly

First Committee

22nd Meeting (AM)

FIRST COMMITTEE ASKS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ENCOURAGE STATES TO ENSURE IRONCLAD

INTERNAL CONTROLS TO PREVENT DIVERSION OF LEGAL WEAPONS TO ILLICIT MARKET

Session Culminates in Passage of 58 Drafts, Including on Nuclear-Weapon-Free

World, Surplus Conventional Ammunition Stocks, Use of Arms with Depleted Uranium

The General Assembly, recognizing that the absence of common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms was contributing to conflict, displacements, and crime and terrorism would encourage all States to ensure that their national systems and internal controls to prevent the diversion of those weapons from the legal into the illicit market were at the highest possible standards, according to 1 of 12 draft resolutions approved today by the Disarmament Committee as it concluded its work for the session.

By a recorded vote of 145 in favour to 2 against (United States, Zimbabwe), with 18 abstentions, the Committee approved the text by which the Assembly would also decide to establish an open-ended working group in order to facilitate further consideration of the complex issues of international trade in conventional arms, according to recommendations of the Governmental Expert Group previously set up by the General Assembly to consider the item.  (For details of that vote, see Annex IX).

Prior to approval of the draft, three separate recorded votes were taken.  In the first, the Committee retained the third operative paragraph, which would establish that open-ended working group, by a vote of 141 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 19 abstentions (Annex VI).

The next, the fourth operative paragraph -- by which the open-ended working group would hold a one-day organizational session in New York by 27 February 2009 to plan for its future substantive sessions -- was retained by a vote of 142 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 18 abstentions (Annex VII).

By a nearly identical voting pattern of 141 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 19 abstentions, the Committee retained the draft’s fifth operative, which would have the open-ended working group further consider elements in 2009 in the report of the Governmental Experts Group where consensus could be developed for inclusion in an eventual legally binding arms trade treaty (Annex VIII).

Mindful of making the United Nations more effective in maintaining peace and security by giving it resources and tools for conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, post-conflict peacebuilding and reconstruction, the Assembly would, by another text, appeal to all interested States to determine the size and nature of their surplus stockpiles of conventional ammunition, whether they represent a security risk, if appropriate, their means of  destruction, and whether external assistance is needed to eliminate this risk.

That text, by which the Assembly would also reiterate its decision to address the issue of surplus conventional ammunition stockpiles in a comprehensive manner, was approved by a vote of 172 in favour to none against, with no abstentions (Annex V).

A text on the effects of using armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium –- by which the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to ask relevant international organizations to update and complete their studies and research on the effects of such material on human health and the environment –- was approved by a vote of 127 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 34 abstentions (Annex XII).

By yet another text, the Assembly would call upon all States to comply fully with all commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and not act in any way that may compromise, either cause, or that may lead to a new nuclear arms race.  That draft resolution was approved by a vote of 141 in favour to 5 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, United States), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, Latvia, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom) (Annex II).

Prior to that draft’s approval, the Committee had voted to retain its fourth operative paragraph, which would have the Assembly reiterate its call upon all States parties to spare no effort to achieve the universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and in that regard, urge India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States, promptly and without conditions.  It acted by a vote of 138 in favour to 4 against (India, Israel, Pakistan, United States), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom) (Annex I).

A draft text on the relationship between disarmament and development was also approved, by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (France) (Annex XI).

The Committee also approved a draft text on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 5 against ( Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United Kingdom, United States) with 49 abstentions (Annex X).

Taking still another recorded vote, the Committee approved a draft text on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities by a vote of 166 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel) (Annex IV).

A draft resolution on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol was approved by a vote of 160 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Israel, Marshall Islands, United States) (Annex III).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved draft resolutions on:  the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control; the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean; the United Nations Regional Centres for peace and disarmament; and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.

A draft decision on the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament was also approved by consensus.

Explanations of vote were made by the representatives of the United States, China, India, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Uzbekistan, Bahamas, Niger, Armenia, Venezuela, Pakistan, Singapore, Cuba, Russian Federation, Belarus, Iran, United Republic of Tanzania, Morocco, Sierra Leone, Jordan, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Congo, Indonesia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement) Japan, Australia, France, Netherlands and Ecuador.

General statements were made by the representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Indonesia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Cuba, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Mexico, Uruguay, Nigeria and Libya.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue to take action on all draft texts submitted under disarmament and international security agenda items.

General Statement

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he would like to clarify his position on operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution “L.30”, entitled “Towards a nuclear weapons-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments”.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was a right it had under the Treaty’s article 10.  His country’s return to the Treaty would be based on the resolution of the nuclear arms problem on the Korean peninsula.  If that occurred, then the Democratic People’s Republic’s issues with the NPT would be addressed.

Action on Draft Resolutions, Decisions

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.1/63/L.30), which was introduced by South Africa.

That text would have the General Assembly, recognizing the continued vital importance of the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) to the advancement of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives, and mindful of the approaching 2010 Review Conference of the NPT, continue to emphasize the central role of the NPT and its universality in achieving nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and call upon all State parties to respect their obligations under the Treaty.  It would also call on States to fully comply with all commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.

A separate vote on operative paragraph 4 on “L.30” was requested.  That paragraph reads, “Reiterates its call upon all States parties to spare no effort to achieve the universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and in this regard urges India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon States promptly and without conditions.”

The Committee then voted to retain that paragraph by 138 in favour to 4 against (India, Israel, Pakistan, United States), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom).  (For details of the vote, please see Annex I).

The draft resolution as a whole was then approved by a vote of 141 in favour to 5 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, United States), with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, Latvia, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom) (Annex II).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said that while her delegation had voted against the resolution as a whole, that action in no way detracted from its support of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.  The United States strongly supported the Treaty and was committed to working diligently to further strengthen it.  It had voted “no” because it did not believe that the draft addressed all the important elements of the NPT, including non-proliferation and cooperation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  Further, the United States did not support the test-ban Treaty and believed that some elements of the documents agreed upon at the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences had been overtaken by events.

Despite its vote, the United States did support some elements of the draft, namely the universality of the NPT, including the return of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to that Treaty at an early date and to its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, she said.  It also supported the resolution on the Middle East adopted at the 1995 Review Conference and was working with States within and outside the region to implement it.  It agreed that it was important that NPT parties intensify their constructive engagement in the work of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 Review Conference, including identifying and addressing specific aspects of the Treaty where urgent progress was required.  It also agreed on the need for a constructive and successful review process to strengthen the Treaty.  As in the past, the United States had been engaging with its fellow NPT partners for those purposes and would continue to do so.

The representative of China explained her delegation’s votes on “L.14”, on nuclear disarmament, “L.30”, on a nuclear-weapon-free world, and “L.58”, on renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, all of which concerned nuclear disarmament.

She said that China had always stood for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  It believed that the continuation of the nuclear disarmament process contributed to world peace.  China was in favour of the purpose of the above-mentioned resolutions, which it hoped would promote nuclear disarmament and an earlier realization of a world free of nuclear weapons.  While “L.14” and “L.30” had room for improvement, they were relatively balanced.  Thus, China had voted in favour of those two resolutions.  At the same time, the related measures in “L.58” were not feasible in current circumstances, and her delegation had, therefore, voted against that text.

The representative of India, explaining his delegation’s vote on “L.30”, said his country remained committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons.  It was concerned about the use of those weapons and believed the best and most effective non-proliferation process was time bound and verifiable.  Nevertheless, it had voted against that resolution.  In urging India to accede to the NPT, the draft did not comply with international law, which said that accession to a Treaty was based on free consent.

The representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina said he had missed the vote on operative paragraph 4 of “L.30” and would have voted “yes”.

Uzbekistan’s representative said that his delegation would have voted in favour of the resolution if it had been in the room.

The representative of the Bahamas would have voted in favour of operative paragraph 4 if the delegation had been in the room.

The representative of Niger said his delegation had also wished to vote for operative paragraph 4 and the resolution in its entirety.

Armenia’s representative had missed the vote on “L.30” and would have voted in favour of it.

General Statements

Making a general statement on cluster 2, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the representative of Indonesia said that the Movement had put forward the draft text on “L.25”.  He noted two updates to the draft in operative paragraphs 1 and 4, by which the text would, among other things, call on all States that had not yet done so to withdraw their reservations to the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.  It was hoped that all Member States would support the resolution.

Action on Draft Resolutions, Decisions

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/C.1/63/L.25), which would have the Assembly, taking note of the Secretary-General’s note (document A/61/116), renew its previous call to all States to observe strictly the principles and objectives of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, and reaffirm the vital necessity of upholding its provisions.  It would also call upon those States that continued to maintain reservations to the 1925 Geneva Protocol to withdraw them and request the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly, at its sixty-fifth session, a report on the implementation of the present resolution.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 160 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions ( Israel, Marshall Islands, United States) (Annex III).

General Statement

The representative of Cuba said it was necessary to continue to draft transparency and confidence-building measures on outer space.  He noted that Cuba was a co-sponsor of draft resolution “L.44/Rev.1”.  Cuba had also co-sponsored the draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/C.1/63/L.4).  The resolutions were a significant contribution to preventing an outer space arms race.

Action on Draft Resolutions, Decisions

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities (document A/C.1/63/ L.44/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly, noting the introduction by the Russian Federation and China at the Conference on Disarmament of a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, and of the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects, 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 approved by a vote of 166 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel) (Annex IV).

The representative of the United States said that although her delegation had voted against draft resolution “L.44/Rev.1”, that in no way detracted from her country’s long-standing support for voluntary transparency and confidence-building measures for outer space activities.  The United States had repeatedly noted in multilateral forums that some new transparency and confidence-building measures, implemented on a voluntary basis, had the potential to enhance satellite safety and reduce uncertainty in an evolving space environment.  The United States also supported a set of voluntary measures that focused on a pragmatic and incremental approach to space safety and security.

She said her country had voted “no” because it believed the resolution made an unacceptable linkage between proposals for voluntary pragmatic transparency and confidence-building measures and the commencement of futile negotiations on unnecessary and unverifiable space arms control agreements.  In particular, she noted the resolution’s reference to the draft treaty introduced this year by Russia and China at the Conference on Disarmament, which the United States opposed.  Despite that disappointment, the United States would continue to pursue opportunities to establish bilateral space security dialogues with Russia, China and other space-faring nations.

General Statements

The representative of the United Kingdom said that “L.39” built on the work already accomplished in the group of 28 experts appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General and would take the next step on how to move forward on the arms trade in a forum that involved all Member States, all of whom had a stake in those discussions.  While only a limited number of countries were major arms manufacturers, it was a fact that the majority of countries became suppliers when they disposed of their obsolete or surplus weapons.  Although extensions and complex regulations had been established for weapons of mass destruction, nothing remotely similar existed at the international level for conventional weapons.  The situation must not be allowed to continue.

He said that progress towards that goal at the United Nations had been slow, but the fact that more than 100 nations had agreed to co-sponsor “L.39” demonstrated the determination of the world community to remedy the situation.  More than 100 nations had given detailed views to the Secretary-General, and the discussions in the United Nations among the 28 experts had led to a better understanding of some of the elements that would form an integral of part of an eventual arms trade treaty.

The position of the United Kingdom and many others on the need for budgetary rigour was well known, he said.  That was why, despite the importance and urgency of taking forward work on an arms trade treaty, the authors of the draft resolution had worked closely with the Secretariat and the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs in drafting the text.  Specific dates for meetings of the open-ended working group were identified by the Secretariat and reflected a requirement for additional funding.  There were those that said that was too ambitious, but it should be kept in mind that nothing had ever been achieved by those who said it could not be done.

The representative of Australia, taking the floor as co-author of “L.39”, welcomed the consensus report of the Group of Experts.  She echoed and endorsed the statements made by the United Kingdom’s representative, adding that it was her delegation’s understanding that the costs associated with the resolution for the 2008-2009 biennium would be absorbed by the Secretariat.

Japan’s representative said that as a result of the prior consultations withthe Secretariat, it could manage to absorb the costs of the open-ended working group in 2009.  Thus, it was his delegation’s understanding that additional costs would not be incurred.

The representative of Mexico said that her delegation fully supported “L.39”.  As with other delegations, she lamented that the Secretariat had informed that budgetary implications could not be absorbed.  She hoped that additional efforts would be made to accept those costs.

Uruguay’s representative, explaining his delegation’s vote, said it would vote in favour of “L.39” which his delegation had co-sponsored.  With that decision, the Government of Uruguay hoped that the draft arms trade treaty could be negotiated in an open-ended working group that included all United Nations Member States, and that a legally binding agreement could be developed.  Such an instrument should address the weakest link in this chain -- arms dealers.

The representative of Nigeria said that his delegation believed that no sacrifice would be too great to make in having such a resolution, which was a positive move towards fashioning a legally binding agreement to control the circulation of such arms.  He thanked those countries that were supporting that effort.

The Secretariat advised that programme budget implications would be brought to the attention of the Fifth Committee.

The representative of Libya, speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, and Kuwait, said that recent discussions had been held to address certain shortcomings in the draft.  Overall, the coalition believed that the topic of an arms trade treaty should be pursued through a consensus-based approach.  Yet, the text had not incorporated those suggestions.

This draft resolution also lacked a specific mandate for the open-ended working group -– a situation that would impede the establishment of common international standards.  Rushing towards a treaty would only lead to weaknesses in its content, as well as a lack of balance.  It would be politicized in a manner that harmed the interests of the developing countries.  At a time when the NPT faced obstacles, it was strange there was an effort to create a new regime that would only increase competition between countries that produced weapons, and those that imported them for self-defence.  Indeed, if the exporting countries were allowed to judge the importing countries, the treaty would lack justice.

While the countries for which he spoke supported complete and general disarmament, any efforts to control armaments in a selective way was not balanced and would impede efforts towards disarmament, especially in the Middle East, he said.  Western countries were still providing Israel with weapons, despite Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians, and despite its possession of nuclear weapons and its refusal to accede to the NPT.  The drafters of the resolution had been provided with suggestions by his group, but they had ignored them.  In light of that, they were abstaining from the vote.

Action on Draft Resolutions, Decisions

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus (document A/C.1/63/L.35).  That text would have the Assembly encourage all interested States to assess, on a voluntary basis, whether, in conformity with their legitimate security needs, parts of their stockpiles of conventional ammunition should be considered to be in surplus, and recognize that the security of such stockpiles must be taken into consideration and that appropriate controls with regard to the security and safety of stockpiles of conventional ammunition were indispensable at the national level, in order to eliminate the risk of explosion, pollution or diversion.  The Assembly would appeal to all interested States to determine the size and nature of their surplus stockpiles of conventional ammunition, whether they represented a security risk, if appropriate, their means of destruction and whether external assistance was needed to eliminate this risk.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 172 in favour to none against, with no abstentions (Annex V).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution entitled Towards an arms trade treaty:  establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms (document A/C.1/63/L.39), which would have the Assembly, determined to prevent the diversion of conventional arms -- including small arms and light weapons -- from the legal into the illicit trade, endorse the report of the Secretary-General contained in document A/63/334, prepared with the assistance of the Group of Governmental Experts, taking into account the views of Member States reported in document A/62/278 part I, ii and addenda I, ii and iii of 17 August 2007.

It would also encourage all States to implement and address, on a national basis, the relevant recommendations contained in paragraphs 28 and 29, Section VII of the report, and commend all States to carefully consider how to achieve such implementation in order to ensure their national systems and internal controls are at the highest possible standards to prevent the diversion of conventional arms from the legal to the illicit market where they can be used for terrorist acts, organized crime and other criminal activities, and further calls on those States in a position to do so to render assistance in this regard upon request, among other things.

A separate vote had been requested on operative paragraph 3, which reads Decides, in order to facilitate further consideration on the implementation of the relevant recommendation contained in paragraph 27 of the report of the Secretary-General on a step-by-step basis among all States Members of the United Nations, in an open and transparent manner, to establish an open-ended working group, to meet for up to six one-week sessions starting in 2009, of which the two sessions foreseen in 2009 will be held in New York from 2 to 6 March and 13 to 17 July, respectively”.

The Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 3 by 141 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 19 abstentions (Annex VI).

A separate vote had also been requested on operative paragraph 4, which reads“Also decides that the open-ended working group will hold a one-day organizational session in New York by 27 February 2009 in order to agree on the organizational arrangements connected with the open-ended working group, including the dates and venues for its future substantive sessions”.

The Committee retained the fourth operative by a vote of 142 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 18 abstentions (Annex VII).

In addition, a separate vote had been requested on operative paragraph 5, which reads “Further decides that the open-ended working group will, during 2009, further consider those elements in the report of the Group of Governmental Experts where consensus could be developed for their inclusion in an eventual legally binding treaty on the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, which provides a balance giving benefit to all, with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and other existing international obligations at the centre of such considerations, and to transmit an initial report from the open-ended working group to the General Assembly for consideration at its sixty-fourth session”.

The Committee accepted operative paragraph 5 by a vote of 141 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 19 abstentions (Annex VIII).

The draft resolution as a whole was then approved by a vote of 145 in favour to 2 against ( United States, Zimbabwe), with 18 abstentions (Annex IX).

The representative of Venezuela said she voted in favour of draft resolution “L.35”, however each Government must determine when their stockpiles of weapons were in surplus.  The marking of ammunition was important to stopping the black market trade in arms.  It was the primary responsibility of the countries where the arms had originated to oblige the marking of weapons before export, in order to facilitate tracking.  She reiterated a firm commitment to complete and general disarmament.

She said her country had abstained from the vote on “L.39”, as it believed it was more effective to strengthen the existing mechanisms to avoid the illegal transfer of arms.  The guidelines already adopted by the Disarmament Commission constituted a good base for putting in place a legally binding instrument on the marking and tracing of arms.  She said the forming of a working group to address the issue in open-ended discussions was positive.

Also speaking on “L.39”, the representative of China said he had abstained in the vote because some content in the text deviated from the report of the Group of Governmental Experts submitted last August.  That report had been adopted by consensus.  The practice of some of the main sponsors of the resolution had created an unfavourable precedent.  Such a practice would undermine the Conference on Disarmament’s position as the sole arms control negotiation forum.  Although China voted in abstention, it was very concerned about the regional instability and humanitarian crisis resulting from the illegal trade in arms.  Follow-up should be done in the framework of the report of the Group of Governmental Experts and should abide by the important principle of consensus-building.  The outcome of the discussion should not be prejudged.

India’s representative, also speaking on “L.39”, said he shared the international community’s concern about the negative effects of illegal arms trade, particularly the trade in small arms and light weapons.  The complexity of the issue had been recognized by the report of the Group of Governmental Experts.  India had experts in that Group.  However, the draft resolution departed from the experts’ report.  India supported consensus-building that would lead to legally binding instruments in a non-discriminatory way.  The focus of any treaty on the matter should not be on exporters and importers alone.  Sovereign rights and security interests in the foreign policy of countries were important.  There was a need for greater clarity and specificity in the open-ended group.  As a result, he had abstained from the vote.

The representative of Pakistan said he voted in favour of “L.35”, but emphasized that the onus in controlling arms was on the major military Powers.

On “L.39”, he said the draft had been improved, but it still continued to predetermine the end of the open-ended discussions.

He said he had abstained from voting on “L.30” as a whole because operative paragraph 4 requested Pakistan to join the NPT without conditions.  “We cannot accept the NPT”, he said.

The representative of Singapore, explaining his delegation’s vote in favour of “L.39”, said his country supported, and would continue to support, work towards a common international standard for the control of the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.  It firmly believed that further consideration of such a common international standard should be conducted on a step-by-step basis in an open and transparent manner.  Further deliberations and decision-making should be conducted on the basis of consensus.

He said Singapore also supported the establishment of an open-ended working group in 2009, working on the basis of consensus, to discuss the recommendations contained in the report of the Group of Governmental Experts.  It agreed that the working group could further consider the elements in that report, where consensus could be developed, for their inclusion in an eventual treaty.

The resolution remained ambiguous in operative paragraph 5 with specific regard to the phrase “other existing international obligations”.  Because it believed that the working group’s work should be conducted on a consensual basis, it should only consider international obligations to which all Member States were party.

The representative of Cuba, explaining his delegation’s vote on “L.39”, said the text addressed an important topic that had security implications for many Member States.  The work of the Group of Governmental Experts was very illustrative of the diversity of opinions.  Indeed, the Group had not been able to reach a consensus on a legally binding agreement that encompassed common regulations on conventional weapons.

For its part, his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution because it believed that its positions had been included in the text.  The draft reaffirmed the United Nations Charter and international law.  It reaffirmed the right to self-defence of all States as established in article 51 of the Charter.  Although it did not do so in its entirety, the text generally included the recommendations of the Group of Governmental Experts, which Cuba supported.  To give continuity to the topic, an open-ended working group should be established to create the kind of process that Cuba supported:  an open and transparent one that would support consensus decisions.  The text also clearly established that future consideration of the topic would be held in a United Nations body.

Pointing to the text’s “salient defects”, however, he said that it tended to prejudge that adoption of an arms trade treaty was the most effective option for dealing with arms transfers.  The question of viability of a future treaty must be reviewed by the working group.  The draft also did not make any reference to any future mechanism for dealing with arms transfers, which should have the participation of arms-producing and exporting countries.  Unjustified emphasis was given to small arms and light weapons without due attention to other, more sophisticated weapons.

The representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation had abstained from the vote on “L.39”, although it was concerned about the proliferation of light weapons and the possibility that those weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists.  The work of the Group of Governmental Experts had provided a good and balanced basis for future consideration of the entire issue.  The Group’s report showed painstaking work on methods to combat that trade.  The experts had stressed that in order to reach an outcome that would incorporate all States, steps had to be taken in a transparent and inclusive way.  They had also drawn attention to closely-related issues, such as illegal brokering, the problem of weapons produced without a license and the supply of weapons to non-State actors.  Those issues remained important.  His delegation was not fully convinced, however, that an enlarged group could reach an agreement when a smaller one had not.  His delegation believed it was the task of the working group to discuss, in more detail, the many areas where agreement had been elusive.

Saying she took the floor with some regret to explain her delegation’s vote against operative paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the arms trade treaty draft, as well as the draft as a whole, the representative of the United States said her country supported the goal of promoting responsible arms transfers and reducing the destabilizing trade in illicit arms.  But it did not believe a global arms trade treaty would accomplish that goal.  To be effective, any arms trade treaty would require the support of the major arms exporters, and the United States believed that some major arms exporters would refuse to agree to an arms trade treaty that required meaningful, effective conventional arms transfer controls policies.  The only way to convince all major arms exporters to sign on would be to weaken the instrument’s provisions.  Concluding a weak treaty would legitimize international standards based on a lowest common denominator and would not address the problem.

Notwithstanding its concern about an arms trade treaty and its vote against resolution 61/89, she said the United States had participated in the Group of Governmental Experts this year.  The American expert had worked hard to ensure that the Group’s report accurately conveyed the complex nature of the international arms trade, and the need to avoid ineffective measures.  The United States had not been alone in insisting that follow-on work should occur in a step-by-step manner and on the basis of consensus.  In the end, all of the Group’s members had agreed to the carefully-balanced recommendation in paragraph 27 of the report that “further consideration of efforts within the United Nations to address the international trade in conventional arms is required on a step-by-step basis in an open and transparent manner to achieve, on the basis of consensus, a balance that will provide benefits to all”.

She stressed that the United States stood by those recommendations and the report as a whole.  Unfortunately the draft resolution departed from that carefully constructed recommendation, only selectively drawing on it in operative paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 and rushing towards convening an open-ended working group.  Her delegation had thought the Group’s members had agreed to pause and reflect before calling for any follow-on work.  More importantly, operative paragraph 3 –- as well as the resolution as whole –- did not include protection to allow States to participate honestly in a process that directly touched on one of the United Nations Charter’s most sensitive parts:  the right of individual Member States to self-defence.  The expert group’s report reflected that its discussions had repeatedly returned to that concern.

She said she wondered how members should interpret the fact that operative paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 only drew on the language in the group’s report that the co-sponsors found most appealing and brushed those that were less appealing for some, but critical for others.  Her delegation hoped that was not what awaited a future arms trade treaty.

The representative of Belarus, explaining her delegation’s abstention on “L.39” and the separate votes on the operative paragraphs, welcomed the establishment of a working group, which it believed was the most effective way to hold discussions on the topic.  For its part, Belarus would take part in those discussions.  Nevertheless, it believed that the draft text was rather selective.  Also, operative paragraph 5 was not clear.  Indeed, Belarus believed that the mandate of the working group should be pursued via non-discriminatory means, which did not predetermine the nature of an eventual treaty.  At this early stage, the universality of the treaty could be discussed, but the current draft text did not touch on the needs for the working group to work by consensus.

Iran’s representative, also explaining his country’s position on “L.39”, said that, in view of the complexity of the issues of conventional arms transfers, the expert group had recommended that further consideration required a step-by-step approach.  Notwithstanding that recommendation, the mandate of the open-ended working group was designed to focus on exploring common elements for an eventual treaty on the conventional arms trade.  Yet that was premature, he said, emphasizing that the issue needed further deliberation.  Moreover, the comprehensive implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspectswas a priority and a premature move towards an arms trade treaty could undermine the Action Programme.  For those reasons, his delegation had abstained.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said his delegation had voted in favour of “L.39” in recognition of the last preambular paragraph, which expresses a determination to prevent the diversion of conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons, from the legal to the illicit trade.  It had done this on the understanding and on the hope that a specific reference to small arms and light weapons would have appeared in operative paragraphs, specifically in operative paragraph 7, the decision to include the item of an arms trade treaty on provisional agenda of the Assembly’s next session.  He also wished to record, albeit belatedly, his support for resolutions “L.30”, “L.25” and “L.44/Rev.1”.

The representative of Morocco said he had voted in favour of “L.39” and stressed the high level of participation in that vote.  He also welcomed the establishment of the open-ended working group to deal with that complex and universal topic.  The textaddressed the political will of Member States to be part of this process,beyond some technical defects of the text and without predetermining the outcome of that group’s deliberations.  He paid tribute to the draft’s sponsors and expressed hope that future work would, in light of the topic’s universality, take into account the positions of those countries that had voted against the resolution.  He underlined his country’s long-standing commitment to deal with the small arms and light weapons trade, particularly because of its effects on the African continent.

The representative of Sierra Leone said he had stepped out during action on “L.39” and wanted to register his “yes” vote for that draft.

Jordan’s representative said her delegation had not been in the room during the vote, but would have voted in favour of operative paragraph 4 of “L.30” and for “L.30” as a whole.

Similarly the representative of Rwanda said his delegation supported “L.39”, even though it had not been in the room during the vote.

The representative of Ethiopia said his delegation wished to have its vote in favour of “L.30” and the text’s operative paragraph 4 be recorded.

The representative of Congo said that had he been in the room at the time of the voting, he would have voted in favour of “L.35”, “L.30” and “L.44 Rev.1”.

Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the representative of Indonesia presented on four draft resolutions.  Concerning “L.20”, he believed strongly in multilateralism and a multilaterally agreed solution as the only way of addressing disarmament issues.  He urged the adoption of the resolution by all Member States.  On “L.21”, he considered that the continued sustainability of the environment was of utmost importance, especially in the formulation of agreements on disarmament and arms control.  Concerning the relationship between development and disarmament, the subject of “L.23”, there was a symbiotic relationship between the two.  He was concerned about increasing global military expenditures, which could be used for development causes, and he urged constraint.

On “L.26”, he noted that depleted uranium was chemically toxic and radioactive because of its very high density.  There was no clear impact of its effect on the human body.  More research was needed on depleted uranium emissions.  The draft reflected a legitimate concern.  Compared to previous resolutions, it had two additional preambular paragraphs and four new operative provisions.  The Movement hoped the resolutions would be supported.

The representative of Cuba endorsed the statement made by Indonesia’s representative on resolutions “L.20”, “L.21”, “L.23” and “L.26”.  On “L.20”, he emphasized the complex international situation that existed in the disarmament sphere.  On “L.21”, he stressed that environmental norms should be fully borne in mind when negotiating disarmament instruments.  He highlighted that “L.26” was a matter of legitimate concern, as the use of armaments containing depleted uranium was a concern to many countries.  On that, he supported more research.  He urged support for the resolutions.

Action on Draft Resolutions, Decisions

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/63/L.20), which would have the Assembly urge the participation of all interested States in multilateral negotiations on arms regulations, non-proliferation and disarmament in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner.  It would, once again, call upon all Member States to renew and fulfil their individual and collective commitments to multilateral cooperation as an important means of pursuing and achieving their common objectives in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.

The Committee approved the draft resolution by a vote of 115 in favour to 5 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, United Kingdom, United States), with 49 abstentions (Annex X).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (document A/C.1/63/L.21), by which the Assembly would reaffirm that international disarmament forums should take fully into account the relevant environmental norms in negotiating treaties and agreements on disarmament and arms limitation, and that all States, through their actions, should contribute fully to ensuring compliance with relevant norms in the implementation of treaties and conventions to which they are parties.

By further provisions, 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 attain sustainable development.  It would invite all 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 request him to submit a report containing that information to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the Relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/63/L.23), which would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to further strengthen the role of the United Nations in disarmament, 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.

Also by that text, 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 also further 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 2008, as well as to make greater efforts to integrate disarmament, humanitarian and development activities.

On a point of order, a recorded vote was requested.

Then, the draft resolution was approved by a vote of 167 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (France) (Annex XI).

Next, the Committee took up a draft resolution on the Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium (document A/C.1/63/L.26), which would have the Assembly promote multilateralism as an essential means to carry forward negotiations on arms regulation and disarmament, and invite Member States and relevant international organizations, particularly those that had not yet done so, to communicate their views on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium.

Also by that text, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to ask relevant international organizations to update and complete, as appropriate, their studies and research on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium, along with encouraging Member States, particularly the affected States, to facilitate studies on the same.  Additionally, it would request the Secretary-General to submit an updated report on the subject to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session, reflecting information presented by Member States and relevant international organizations.

Taking a recorded vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution by a vote of 127 in favour to 4 against ( France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 34 abstentions (Annex XII).

The representative of Japan said he supported “L.26” because studies on the effects on human health of arms containing depleted Uranium were ongoing.  No international conclusion had been draw so far, and Japan would follow developments in the area.  He commended all international organizations studying the issue, and Japan called on relevant international organizations to continue their onsite studies of the effects on human health.

The representative of Australia, speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand in explanation of their abstention on “L.20”, said they were disappointed that they could not support the resolution.  Their strong commitment to multilateralism was well known, but they could not agree that multilateralism constituted the core principle in disarmament and non-proliferation negotiations, as indicated in operative paragraphs 1 and 2.  The issue covered in the text required a combination of methods, in order to achieve concrete results.  In their view, the fact that the draft presented multilateralism as the only way to address the issue disregarded alternatives to improve international security.

Addressing “L.23”, the representative of France, speaking in his national capacity, said the international community had highlighted the importance of the link between questions of disarmament and development.  His delegation did not question the link, but fully acknowledged its existence in the sense that the creation of a stable and safe environment constituted a precondition for the success of any reconstruction and development policy.  His delegation did not contest the challenge of financing for development.  However, it continued to abstain because it could not subscribe to certain elements in the text.  This year, amendment suggestions had been put forward to the authors of the draft, and unfortunately, not even the most minor of remarks had been taken into account.

He said France questioned the notion of “symbiotic” relationship between disarmament and development, as suggested in preambular paragraph 7, along with the idea that the means devoted to military expenditures “could otherwise be allocated to needs of development”.  That point appeared quite simplistic.  He also pointed out that some initiatives aimed at developing innovative mechanisms to finance development existed that would allow the Committee to put into perspective the text’s argument.

Also speaking on “L.23”, the representative of the United Kingdom noted that her delegation had been pleased to support it.  She welcomed the mainstreaming of disarmament issues in development policy.  That was particularly important in the field of conventional weapons, small arms and light weapons and disarmament, demobilization and reintegration.  The United Kingdom did not believe there was an automatic link between disarmament and development.

Concerning “L.21”, she said that had there had been a call for a vote, the United Kingdom probably would have abstained.  Because there had not been a vote, her delegation had not actually participated in the approval.

She said the United Kingdom’s vote on operative paragraph 4 in “L.30” should have been a “yes”.

The representative of the Netherlands, explaining his delegation’s vote in favour of “L.26”, said his country appreciated the topic being discussed in the United Nations forum.  But the basis and approach of that discussion could have been formulated in a more useful way if it had referred to “possible” effects rather than “potential” effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium.  Indeed, the reference to the “potential” effects could not be supported to date by conclusive scientific data.  Moving forward, his delegation would closely monitor progress and research made on that front.

The representative of the United States took the floor to explain her delegation’s positions on “L.21”, “L.23” and “L.26”.  On “L.21”, the United States disassociated itself from the Committee’s consensus.  For its part, it acted under stringent environmental regulation.  It also saw no relationship between sustainable development and arms control.

She said the United States had not participated in the vote on “L.23” because it believed that disarmament and development did not lend themselves to any linkages.  It had not participated in the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development in 1987 and did not consider itself bound by that Conference’s outcome document.

Speaking for the United States, as well as the United Kingdom and France -- all three of which had voted “no” on “L.26” -- she said that that resolution, by calling for action by the Secretary-General, ignored a growing body of scientific evidence on the effects of depleted uranium.  Numerous studies had been conducted by such groups as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Health Organization (WHO), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), European Commission and others, and all of them had concluded that there was no relationship.

France ’s representative, clarifying his delegation’s vote on “L.30”, said he had voted against that resolution.  As it was his country’s practice, he had abstained in the separate vote on operative paragraph 4.  That abstention was not related to the paragraph’s content.  Further on “L.21”,he clarified that he wished to be considered as not participating in that vote.

Ecuador’s representative said that on this cluster his delegation had supported “L.32/Rev.1”, even though the vote had not been recorded as a “yes”.

General Statements

Turning to cluster 7 on disarmament machinery, and highlighting “L.42” on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, the representative of Nepal said his delegation had introduced that draft because it firmly believed that the Regional Centre was the prime entity to promote region-based initiatives on peace and disarmament.  Nepal believed the Centre could, through enhanced levels of activities, build confidence and transparency in the region.  It was convinced that the draft’s preambular and operative paragraphs reflected the report of the Secretary-General on the matter.  Unless stable funds were secured, however, the Centre’s lofty goals of disarmament would remain a distant dream.  He asked that the text be approved without a vote.

The representative of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that many countries had expressed their determination to promote multilateralism at the first special session of the General Assembly on disarmament.  That session’s outcome document had stated that while the final objective of all States should be general and complete disarmament, the most pressing goal was eliminating the immediate danger of nuclear weapons.  But the existing machinery had not produced sufficient results.  A forum for disarmament negotiations was needed, and should begin within the sphere of the United Nations and its Charter.  The way forward on that was through a general session.  Towards that goal, the Movement looked forward to a convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament.  He hoped that delegations would support the recommendations contained “L.22”.

Turning to “L.24” on the United Nations regional Centres for peace and disarmament, he underlined that the centres had been instrumental in regional disarmament efforts and that voluntary contributions would strengthen the disarmament activities of their host regions.  The remaining separate resolutions before the Committee on the regional Centres –- “L.13” and “L.42” -– stressed the important role that the Centres could play in promoting confidence-building and cooperation on the regional level, just as the resolution adopted yesterday on the Centre in the African region [“L.50/Rev.1”] had.  Noting that the Secretary-General had indicated that the Regional Centres of Latin America and the Caribbean and Asia and the Pacific needed more core funding to retain their ability to fulfil their mandates, he expressed strong support for “L.13”, “L.42” and “L.24”.

Taking the floor to report a technical correction to “L.13”, Peru’s representative said operative paragraph 8 should include the phrase “all the countries of the region”.  It would then read, “encourages the Regional Centre to further develop activities in all the countries of the region in the important area of disarmament and development”.

The representative of the United States, speaking also for the United Kingdom, said that Regional Centres should support disarmament work, but funding for them should come from voluntary regional contributions, as it had since the Centres were created.  While they had traditionally joined consensus on the resolutions on the Centres, they would not do so this year.  They dissociated themselves from consensus because the resolution fundamentally changed the Centres’ nature by including funding from the regular budget.  The United States was opposed to that in general, but particularly at a time when there were proposals to increase the current regular budget by more than 25 per cent.

Similarly, France’s representative said his delegation would not participate in the votes on “L.13” and “L.42” because the draft texts, in their operative paragraphs 3 and 5 respectively, intended to allocate resources from the regular budget.

Action on Draft Resolutions, Decisions

The Committee then took up the draft resolution, as orally amended, on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (document A/C.1/63/L.13).

By the text, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to provide, from the biennial regular budget starting in 2010-2011, the necessary support to ensure the sustainability of the core activities and operations of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, in order for it to carry out its programme of activities in accordance with its mandate.

The draft text would also have the Assembly 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 to increase voluntary contributions to strengthen The Regional Centre, its programme of activities and the implementation thereof.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up a draft decision on the Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/63/L.22), which would have the Assembly, recalling its decision 62/552 of 11 September 2008 and its resolution 62/29 of 5 December 2007, decide to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-fourth session the item entitled “Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament”.

The draft decision was approved without a vote.

Next, it turned to a draft resolution on United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament (document A/C.1/63/L.24), which would have the Assembly reiterate the importance of the United Nations activities at the regional level to advancement in disarmament and to increase the stability and security of its Member States, which could be promoted in a substantive manner by the maintenance and revitalization of the three regional Centres for peace and disarmament.

Also by that text, the Assembly would also appeal to Member States in each region and those that are able to do so, as well as to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to the regional centres in their respective regions to strengthen their activities and initiatives.  It would emphasize the importance of the activities of the regional disarmament branch of the Office for Disarmament Affairs of the Secretariat.  It would further request the Secretary-General to provide all necessary support, within existing resources, to the regional Centres in carrying out their programmes of activities.

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution.

The Committee then took up its last draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/63/L.42), which would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to provide, from the biennial regular budget starting in 2010-2011, the necessary support to ensure the sustainability of the core activities and operations of the Regional Centre, in order for it to carry out its programme of activities in accordance with its mandate.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The representative of Canada, explaining his delegation’s position on “L.13”, “L.42” and “L.50/Rev.1”, said it had joined consensus because it supported so much of the work those Centres carried out.  It remained concerned, however, by the procedural steps that would provide the Centres core funding from the regular budget.  Those Centres had been established on the basis that they would obtain funding through voluntary contributions.  It was inappropriate for the First Committee to have made such decisions; indeed, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was the forum where the full range of budgetary considerations should be taken into account.

In that context, he also noted the Secretary-General’s oral reports, as transmitted by the Secretariat, that the preliminary budget implications would be considered in the Fifth Committee.  Also, at a time when the Secretary-General was advocating for budgetary restraint, it was regrettable that the First Committee had taken that step.  Nevertheless, he would work with the partners in the regions to ensure that the Centres were fulfilling their mandates in an efficient and effective manner.

Revitalization of Committee

Committee Chairman MARCO ANTONIO SUAZO of Honduras then turned to the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, an item that had been allocated to all of the Main Committees.  A draft programme of work in the form of a conference room paper (5) had been prepared, following consultations with the Fourth Committee’s Chairman.  Both Committees would begin their work in the first week of October next year, and the total number of meetings would remain the same.  The allocation of times from the three segments had been adjusted.  One less session would be allocated in 2009 for general debate.  That session would be added to thematic segments.  That was provisional.

Canada ’s representative said that, yet again, the proposed work programme would go into a fifth week, as it did this year.  Yet this year, the Committee’s work had been finished two days earlier.  In the context of reforming the Committee and giving it discipline, he suggested that even in the proposed timetable, the session should end on the Friday before it was currently proposed to conclude to give the Committee an incentive to finish within a four-week time frame.

Echoing those comments, the United Kingdom’s representative said her delegation had been impressed with the fairly quick voting procedures.  She also underlined the move towards focusing more on interactive debate in the thematic discussions.

The representative of the United States echoed support for those suggestions.

The Chairman then urged the Committee to regulate its timeframes and work programme when it approved the provisional programme of work at its next session.  It was “in the hands of the new Chairman and the new Chairman was in the hands of the Committee”.  The Committee then decided to approve the provisional work programme.

Closing of Session

In closing comments, the Chairman expressed gratitude for the help, advice and understanding of the Committee.  He thanked his Vice-Chairmen, as well as the Rapporteur.

The representative of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of Non-Aligned Movement, expressed appreciation to the Chair and to the Secretariat.

Nigeria’s representative, quoting a Nigerian proverb, said the Chairman’s lizard had climbed the iroko tree and had reached the ground without falling unconscious, and the Committee was very grateful.

France’s speaker also thanked the Committee Chairman on behalf of the European Union.

Brazil’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, said the Chair had represented that region well.

ANNEX I

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free World, operative paragraph 4

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” (document A/C.1/63/L.30) was approved by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 4 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, 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, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:   India, Israel, Pakistan, United States.

Abstain:  Bhutan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Armenia, Bahamas, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free World

The draft resolution as a whole on “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” (document A/C.1/63/L.30) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 5 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, 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, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Bhutan, Latvia, Micronesia (Federated States of), Pakistan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Armenia, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on 1925 Geneva Protocol

The draft resolution on Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/C.1/63/L.25) was approved by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, 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, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, 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, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, 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, Suriname, 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, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Israel, Marshall Islands, United States.

Absent:  Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Transparency, Confidence-Building in Outer Space

The draft resolution on Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities (document A/C.1/63/L.44/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 166 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, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, 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), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, 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, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Israel.

Absent:  Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania.

ANNEX V

Vote on Accumulation of Surplus Conventional Ammunition Stockpiles

The draft resolution on Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus (document A/C.1/63/L.35) was approved by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to none against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, 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), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, 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, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Arms Trade Treaty, operative paragraph 3

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution “Towards an arms trade treaty:  establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms” (document A/C.1/63/L.39*) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 1 against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Libya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Arms Trade Treaty, operative paragraph 4

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution “Towards an arms trade treaty:  establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms” (document A/C.1/63/L.39*) was approved by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to 1 against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Bahrain, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Libya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Arms Trade Treaty, operative paragraph 5

Operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on “Towards an arms trade treaty:  establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms” (document A/C.1/63/L.39*) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 1 against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Libya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Arms Trade Treaty

The draft resolution as a whole on “Towards an arms trade treaty:  establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms” (document A/C.1/63/L.39*) was approved by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to 2 against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  United States, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Libya, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX X

Vote on Multilateralism in Disarmament, Non-Proliferation

The draft resolution on Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (document A/C.1/63/L.20) was approved by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 5 against, with 49 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, 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, 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:  Bolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Relationship between Disarmament, Development

The draft resolution on Relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/63/L.23) was approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to none 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, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, 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), 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, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  France.

Absent:  Bolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States, Vanuatu.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Effects of Use of Depleted Uranium

The draft resolution on Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium (document A/C.1/63/L.26) was approved by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 4 against, with 34 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, 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, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine.

Absent:  Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Republic of Moldova, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record
For information media. Not an official record.