First Committee Advances Bold, Sweeping Plans to Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenals, Build Confidence, Boost Transparency, Submitting Nine Texts to General Assembly

29 October 2009
GA/DIS/3401

First Committee Advances Bold, Sweeping Plans to Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenals, Build Confidence, Boost Transparency, Submitting Nine Texts to General Assembly

29 October 2009
General Assembly
GA/DIS/3401
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-fourth General Assembly

First Committee

21st Meeting (PM)

First Committee Advances Bold, Sweeping Plans to Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenals,

Build Confidence, Boost Transparency, Submitting Nine Texts to General Assembly

Draft Urging Talks on Treaty Banning Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons

Garners Consensus; Text on Transparency in Armaments Requires Seven Separate Votes

Bold, sweeping plans to reduce nuclear weapons arsenals, build confidence and boost transparency features in one of nine draft resolutions overwhelmingly approved this afternoon by the Disarmament Committee, as the present positive momentum in the field found remarkably few voices of dissent.

Noting that the ultimate objective of the efforts of States in the disarmament process was general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, the General Assembly would recall the need for all States to take further practical steps and effective measures towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, with a view to achieving a peaceful and safe world without nuclear weapons, according to a draft on arenewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. 

The Assembly, further to that text, would call on the nuclear-weapon States to reduce nuclear weapons in a transparent manner, and stress the need for a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination in a way that promoted international stability and security. 

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 161 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India), with 8 abstentions ( Bhutan, China, Cuba, France, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar).  (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

Acting without a vote, in a demonstration of unanimity, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the need for a treaty banning fissile material production.  Convinced that a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning fissile material production for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices would be a “significant” step ahead, the Assembly would urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree early in 2010 on a work programme that included the immediate start of negotiations on such a treaty. 

Reaffirming the determination to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, which killed or maimed hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenceless civilians, including children, the Assembly would renew its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine risk education programmes and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed or stockpiled throughout the world, according to a draft text on the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Mine-Ban Convention).

The Committee took that action in a recorded vote of 158 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions. (See Annex V.)

Reflecting the growing atmosphere of consensus on arms control yet another draft -- on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects – garner almost unanimous support in the Committee, approved by a vote of 179 in favour, none against and no abstentions.  (See Annex IV.)

By its terms, the Assembly would underline the fact that the issue of this illicit trade required concerted efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons. 

The Assembly would underline that the uncontrolled spread of those weapons in many regions of the world had a wide range of humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences and posed a serious threat to peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development at the individual, local, national, regional and international levels.

Prior to that vote, two separate votes were held.  The first was on operative paragraph four, which would have the Assembly recall its endorsement of the report adopted at the third biennial meeting of States to consider the implementation of the Programme of Action, and encourage all States to implement the measures highlighted in the section of the report entitled “The way forward”.

The Committee retained that paragraph by a vote of 177 in favour to none against, with one abstention ( Iran). (See Annex II.)

Operative paragraph 15 was also retained by a vote of 177 in favour to none against, with one abstention ( Iran). (See Annex III.) 

That provision would have the Assembly recall its decision to convene an open-ended meeting of governmental experts for a period of one week, no later than in 2011, to address key implementation challenges and opportunities relating to particular issues and themes, including international cooperation and assistance.

Taking the view that enhancing transparency in arms was in itself a contribution to confidence-building and security, the Assembly would stress that the continued operation and further development of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms should be reviewed, in order to secure a Register capable of attracting the widest possible participation, according to a draft approved by a vote of 150 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex XII).

Explaining why Arab League members had abstained from voting on that draft, the representative of Sudan said part of the reason rested on the fact that problems were created because half of the United Nations membership did not make use of Register. There was a need to widen the Register’s scope because it dealt with only certain weapons and was not being implemented. He said in the future, a balanced and fair Register should contain data about conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

Prior to the adoption of that text, six separate votes were held, and in each, the provisions were retained. 

The first was a vote on operative paragraph three, by which the Assembly would call upon Member States, with a view to achieving universal participation, to provide the Secretary-General, by 31 May annually, with the requested data and information for the Register, including nil reports if appropriate. The Committee voted to retain that paragraph by a vote of 147 in favour to none against, with 24 abstentions (Annex VI).

A separate vote was taken on operative paragraph four, by which the Assembly would invite Member States in a position to do so, pending the Register’s further development, to provide additional information on procurement through national production and military holdings and to make use of the “Remarks” column in the standardized reporting form to provide additional information such as types or models.  That paragraph was approved by a vote of 147 in favour to none against, with 24 abstentions (Annex VII).

Operative paragraph five, by which the Assembly would invite Member States in a position to do so to provide additional information on transfers of small arms and light weapons on the basis of the optional standardized reporting form, as adopted by the 2006 group of governmental experts,or by any other methods they deem appropriate, was retained by a vote of 149 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex VIII).

The Assembly would request the Secretary-General, with a view to the three-year cycle regarding review of the Register, to ensure that sufficient resources were made available for a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2012, to review the Register’s continuing operation and further development, according to operative paragraph 6 (d), which was retained by a vote of 147 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions (Annex IX).

A separate vote was taken on operative paragraph six as a whole, and the Committee voted 148 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex X).

The Committee also took a separate vote on operative paragraph 8, which would have the Assembly invite the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments.  It approved that provision by a vote of 146 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions (Annex XI).

The Committee also approved by consensus the following draft texts: transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space; Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects ; Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security; and Regional confidence-building measures:  activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Asia.

General statements were made on Cluster 1, on nuclear weapons, by the representatives of Japan, Canada and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; on Cluster 3, on outer space (disarmament aspects), the representative of Cuba; on Cluster 4, on conventional weapons, the representative of Azerbaijan; on Cluster 5; regional disarmament and security, the representative of Gabon; and on Cluster 6, on other disarmament measures and international security, the representative of Cuba.

Explanations of vote on Cluster 1 were made by the representatives of France, Pakistan, Syria, India, Brazil, China, Israel, Iran and Venezuela; on Cluster 3, the representative of the United States; on Cluster 4, the representatives of Cuba, Mexico, Mali, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Russian Federation, Norway, Pakistan, Singapore, India, Republic of Korea, Iran and Libya; on Cluster 6, the representatives of Sudan, Syria and Sweden (on behalf of the European Union).

The representatives of Senegal, Mauritius, San Marino, Liberia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Nigeria, Dominica, Belize, Sierra Leone and Mali spoke on procedural matters.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Friday, 30 October, to continue to take action on all disarmament- and security-related draft resolutions.

Background

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

General Statements, Drafts Introductions

Beginning with Cluster 1, on nuclear weapons, AKIO SUDA ( Japan) drew attention to the draft text on Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (A/C.1/64/L.36), which he said his country had co-sponsored.  The content was strong, he said, and this year’s text reflected the latest developments and called for further efforts needed. 

GEOFF GARTSHORE ( Canada) introduced a draft resolution on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (document A/C.1/64/L.1/Rev.1).  This year marked the first time since 2004 that the draft had appeared in the Committee.  Over the course of consultations and bilateral meetings, Canada was pleased that other delegations had responded positively.  He hoped the international community would speak with one voice on the matter.  The draft reflected the work of many delegations here today.

CHOE IL YONG (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) clarified his delegation’s position on L.36.  The Security Council resolutions were unfair.  Japan had no qualification to discuss the six-party talks.  Instead, Japan had created complicity.  The other parties to the talks were well aware of that.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was willing to participate in talks, but his delegation would vote against the draft resolution before the Committee.

Action on Drafts/Decisions

The Committee approved, without a vote, the draft resolution on a fissile material cut-off treaty (document A/C.1/64/L.1/Rev.1). 

By its terms, the General Assembly, convinced that a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning fissile material production for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices would be a significant contribution to disarmament and non-proliferation, would urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree early in 2010 on a programme of work that includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty.  The resolution would also have the Assembly decide to include this item on its sixty-fifth session provisional agenda.

The Committee then took up a draft text on Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/64/L.36), approving it by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India), with 8 abstentions ( Bhutan, China, Cuba, France, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar).  (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

According to the text, the Assembly would stress the importance of an effective Treaty review process, and call upon all States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapon (NPT) to work together so that the 2010 NPT Review Conference can successfully strengthen the Treaty’s regime, and establish effective and practical measures in all the Treaty’s three pillars.

The Assembly would reaffirm the importance of the Treaty’s universality, and call upon States not parties to it to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States without delay and without conditions, and pending their accession to the Treaty, to adhere to its terms as well as to take practical steps in support of it.

Further to the text, the Assembly would call upon all nuclear-weapon States to undertake reductions of nuclear weapons in a transparent manner.  It would invite those States to agree on transparency and confidence-building measures, while noting the increased transparencydemonstrated by nuclear-weapon States on their nuclear arsenals, including the current number of their nuclear warheads.

The Assembly would encourage the Russian Federation and the United States to fully implement the obligations under the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions and to undertake further steps in nuclear disarmament with greater transparency, including the conclusion of a legally binding successor to the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START I), which is due to expire in December 2009, while welcoming the progress that has been made recently.

Under further terms, the Assembly would call upon the nuclear-weapon States to take measures to reduce the risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons and to consider further reducing the operational status of nuclear weapons systems in ways that promoted international stability and security. In addition, it would stress the necessity of a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons will ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination.

It would urge all States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) at the earliest opportunity with a view to its early entry into force and universalization, while stressing the importance of maintaining existing moratoriums on nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending the entry into force.  It would reaffirm the importance of the continued development of the Treaty verification regime, including the international monitoring system, which will be required to provide assurance of compliance with the Treaty.

Welcoming the adoption by the Conference on Disarmament of a Programme of Work for its 2009 session, the Assembly would call upon the Conference to start its substantive work when it convenes in January 2010 and for the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty in 2010.

Welcoming the draft’s approval, the representative of France said it reflected the view taken at the recent Security Council summit on disarmament.  France, since 1992, had halted all production of plutonium and, since 1996, the enrichment of uranium.  The dismantling of those facilities was permanent.  There were no longer any facilities to produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons.  At present, like other European Union partners, it expected States to immediately respect a moratorium on the production of those materials.

France had abstained in the vote on L.36, he said.  In 2008, he had been pleased to have supported it, but the coming Review Conference of the NPT must move forward, and some improvements could have been made to the draft resolution.  A new agreement on reducing strategic arsenals by the Russian Federation and the United States would be remarkable, yet other States were pursuing nuclear weapon development.  The draft text could have stressed further a real commitment towards disarmament.  France supported operative paragraph 5 of the draft text, concerning transparency.

The representative of Pakistan said he had joined the consensus on L.1/Rev.1, without prejudice to the need for the Conference on Disarmament to adopt a balanced and comprehensive programme of work.  The Conference members should commence substantive negotiations on that issue.  Pakistan opposed a nuclear arms race in the region against the backdrop of recent developments, including the introduction of advanced weapons systems.  Pakistan believed the goal of regional peace could only be achieved by addressing issues on regional and international levels.  He could not accept any position that would put Pakistan at a strategic disadvantage.  The principle of consensus was necessary at the Conference on Disarmament. 

On L.36, he said that Pakistan did not agree with several provisions.  He supported the objective of total elimination of nuclear weapons, but some provisions were unrealistic.

The representative of Syria said he had voted for L.36, but he wished to express a reservation to the paragraph on the CTBT because such a provision detracted from the main thrust of the draft.

The representative of India , explaining his opposition to L.36, said that India continued to support time-bound global disarmament, but nuclear weapons were an integral part of its security.  The negative vote did not detract from India’s willingness to work towards disarmament and non-proliferation.

The representative of Brazil, commenting on his country’s favourable vote on L.36, said that operative paragraph 15, on the universalization of the Model Additional Protocol between States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was an issue of voluntary nature. 

The representative of China, also speaking on L.36, endorsed the thrust of disarmament efforts in the resolution.  The relevant measures described were not practical, however, which was why his country had abstained.

The representative of Israel, on L.1/Rev.1, said that recent developments had highlighted the dangers of non-compliance and uncontrolled nuclear programmes, especially in the Middle East.  Certain States could masquerade their illegal activities.  Compliance should be ensured for existing agreements.  Multilateral arrangements should be entered into for nuclear fuel supply and storage options, among other things.  In the end, Israel had decided to join consensus on the text. 

The representative of Iran said his country had voted in favour of L.1/Rev.1, on the understanding that negotiations on nuclear disarmament were of utmost importance.  The Conference on Disarmament’s programme of work should be balanced.  A treaty banning fissile material should cover the past and future production of fissile material.  Balance should be observed and the rules of procedure should be fully followed in the Conference on Disarmament.

The representatives of Venezuela, had voted in favour of L.36, as her country was fully committed to disarmament and non-proliferation.  That should lead, under United Nations aegis, to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

The representative of Mauritius said there was a problem with the voting sheet.  The representatives of Senegal , San Marino, Liberia , Nicaragua, Paraguay, Nigeria, Dominica, Belize , and Sierra Leone said that had they been present in the room for the vote, they would have supported L.36 and wished that to be reflected in the Committee’s record.

General Statements

When the Committee turned to Cluster 3, on the disarmament aspects of outer space, IVONNE SANCHEZ-QUINTERO (Cuba) said that her country had co-sponsored draft resolutions L.25, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which had been approved yesterday, and L.40, on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities, presently before the Committee, because it believed that an arms race in space would entail a tremendous threat to peace.  It was appropriate and necessary, therefore, to prepare international measures to promote confidence in space activities.  It was also necessary to prevent an arms race in space. Draft resolution L.40 included concrete measures to bring about greater transparency in space activities.  Her country hoped that, as in previous years, the draft would get the support of Member States.

Action on Texts

Speaking before action, the representative of the United States said that his country would not be participating in the vote on L.40.  It would continue to undertake voluntary action on space-related activities.  Earlier this year, it had exchanged information with the Russian Federation regarding the collision of satellites in space.  It had also had exchanges with European Union professionals in efforts to advance voluntary transparency and confidence-building measures. His country was currently undergoing a presidential review of its space cooperation options and looked forward to discussing insights from that at the United Nations next year.

Then, acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution on Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities (document A/C.1/64/L.40).

By its terms, the Assembly would take note of the reports of the Secretary-General containing concrete proposals from Member States on international outer space transparency and confidence-building measures and invite all Member States to continue to submit to the Secretary-General concrete proposals on international outer space transparency and confidence-building measures in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

General Statements

Addressing the issue of conventional weapons, in the Committee’s Cluster 4, OGTAY ISMAYIL-ZADA ( Azerbaijan) drew attention to the draft resolution on implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Mine-Ban Convention) (document A/C.1/64/L.53).  His country fully supported the comprehensive ban and destruction of anti-personnel landmines and envisaged the full ban and destruction of those mines throughout the world as an impetus to global security and welfare.

However, he explained, Azerbaijan had not acceded to the Mine-Ban Convention since it was forced to use landmines as a measure of containment from possible hostilities.   Azerbaijan had been suffering from the landmine problem in consequence of the armed conflict resulting in the occupation of 20 per cent of its territory.  It could not accede to the Mine-Ban Convention without settlement of the armed conflict and the restoration of its territorial integrity and removal of the threat of resumption of hostility, even though it had stopped planting additional mines.  Adherence to the Convention would only be possible after the final settlement of the conflict with Armenia.

Despite the difficulties, Azerbaijan followed most of the provisions of the Convention, he said.  It would also demonstrate its will to support the global endeavour to make the world free of the menace of landmines by voting in favour of the draft resolution.  It had also taken a free-will initiative in submitting a report, pursuant to article 7 of the Convention, in 2008.

Action on Texts

The representative of Cuba said that her country would abstain from the vote on L.53.  Although Cuba was not a State party to the Convention on Prohibitions and Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), it complied strictly with the provisions on mines use.  Cuba was under aggression from the only super-Power in the world and, as such, was unable to accede to the instrument, in order to protect its sovereignty.  It would continue to support all efforts by maintaining a necessary balance and working to minimise the effect of anti-personnel mines on civilian populations, particularly their indiscriminate and irresponsible use.  It called on States able to do so to provide humanitarian assistance for mine clearance and victim rehabilitation.

The representative of Mexico said that the delegation would support the draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/64/L.42/Rev.1), but that it believed that it was only through an open and inclusive process that the international community could respond effectively to that threat.  The legitimate concerns of all should be reflected in future.

The representative of Mali said that the name of his country had been omitted from the list of cosponsors of draft resolution L.42/Rev.1.

The representative of Morocco said that Morocco would vote in favour of L.53 to reiterate support for the humanitarian objectives of the Mine-Ban Convention. Landmines caused unacceptable damage.   Morocco had expressed support for the universal trend for the Convention’s entry into force by subscribing to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and it had implemented the relevant provisions and protocols through destruction of mines and assistance to victims.  Its remarkable mine clearance efforts had led to the de-mining and destruction of thousands of anti-tank mines and anti-personnel mines.  The country had also undertaken victim care, including medical and social rehabilitation of victims.  It was continuing dialogue with non-governmental organizations, in order to attain the Convention’s objectives.  It had submitted its reports in line with the Convention and it participated in meetings of the States parties. Adherence to the Convention was a strategic objective of Morocco with regard to its territorial integrity.

The representative of Libya said that her country would abstain from the vote on L.53 because it believed that the international mechanism which currently existed had not taken into account the problem in an objective fashion.  It had also not taken into account the concerns of a large number of Member States.  The treaty had prohibited the use of mines by the most impoverished countries, which only used them to defend their borders.  The treaty also did not take into account that the smaller, weaker countries were subjected to occupation and aggression.

She urged a review of the treaty and the implementation of its provisions in a more practical way, which respond to everybody’s requirements and was acceptable to all. Medical treatment should be provided to the victims, who should be socially rehabilitated.  Care should also be taken to minimize the negative effect of mines on the environment and there should be a ban on the laying of mines in the territories of third countries.  Where mines had been laid in those countries, the States responsible should pay for clearing them.  Poor countries should also be allowed to use mines to defend their borders.  The Convention, in its current form, was not balanced at all and there should be a reconsideration of its text. If the concerns expressed were not heeded, they could be justification for States to abstain from the draft resolution and to withdraw from the Convention itself.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (documentA/C.1/64/L.37), approving it without a vote.

According to that text, the Assembly would call upon all States that had not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and the Protocols thereto, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments at an early date, and so as to ultimately achieve their universality.

The Assembly would further call upon all States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols to the Convention and the amendment extending the scope of the Convention and the Protocols thereto to include armed conflicts of a non-international character.

It would also welcome the decision of the Third Review Conference to establish a Compliance Mechanism in order to promote compliance and the full implementation of the obligations contained in the Convention and its annexed Protocols as well as the decision to establish a sponsorship programme within the framework of the Convention and encourages States to contribute to the programme.

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/64/L.42/Rev.1)

Under those provisions, the Assembly would underlinethe fact that the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects required concerted efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons and that their uncontrolled spread in many regions of the world has a wide range of humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences and posed a serious threat to peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development at the individual, local, national, regional and international levels.

The Assembly would encourageall initiatives, including those of the United Nations, other international organizations, regional and subregional organizations, non-governmental organizations and civil society, for the successful implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects,and call upon all Member States to contribute towards the continued implementation of the Programme of Action at the national, regional and global levels.

It would further encourageall efforts to build national capacity for the effective implementation of the Programme of Action, including those highlighted in the report of the third biennial meeting of States, and decide that, in conformity with the follow-up to the Programme of Action, the fourth biennial meeting of States to consider the national, regional and global implementation of the Programme of Action shall be held in New York from 14 to 18 June 2010.

The Assembly would calluponall States to implement the International Tracing Instrument by, inter alia, including in their national reports information on the name and contact information of the national points of contact and on national marking practices related to markings used to indicate country of manufacture and/or country of import, as applicable.

A separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 4, which would recall the endorsement of the report adopted at the third biennial meeting of States to consider the implementation of the Programme of Action, and have the Assembly encourage all States to implement the measures highlighted in the section of the report entitled “The way forward”.

Operative paragraph 4 was approved by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention ( Iran) (Annex II).

Next, a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 15, which would recallthe decision to convene an open-ended meeting of governmental experts for a period of one week, no later than in 2011, to address key implementation challenges and opportunities relating to particular issues and themes, including international cooperation and assistance.

Operative paragraph 15 was approved by a vote of 177 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention ( Iran) (Annex III).

Then, the draft resolution as a whole was approved by a vote of 179 in favour to none against, with no abstentions (Annex IV).

The Committee next took up the draft resolution on the Mine-Ban Convention (document A/C.1/64/L.53), approving that text by a vote of 158 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions (Annex V).

The draft resolution would have the Assembly reaffirm its determination to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel mines, which kill or maim hundreds of people every week, mostly innocent and defenceless civilians, including children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction, inhibit the repatriation of refugees and internally displaced persons and have other severe consequences for years after emplacement. 

The Assembly would note with regret that anti-personnel mines continue to be used in conflicts around the world, causing human suffering and impeding post-conflict development.

It would urge all States that had signed but not ratified the Convention to ratify without delay, and would stress the important of the full and effective implementation of and compliance with the Convention.  The Assembly would further urge all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information to promote transparency and compliance with the Convention.  It would renew its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine risk education programmes and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed or stockpiled throughout the world.

Explaining his vote on L.53, Egypt’s representative said the delegation had abstained from voting due to the unbalanced nature of the instrument, which had been concluded outside the United Nations context.  Egypt had imposed a moratorium on landmines long before the conclusion of the Mine-Ban Convention.  Regrettably, the treaty did not acknowledge the responsibilities of States that had laid mines on other territories, as was the case in Egypt, where mines had been planted by Second World War Powers.

The representative of the Russian Federation said his country had also abstained from the vote on L.53.  Russia was against the creation of forums where ones already existed.  The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons was the appropriate forum for that issue.  Russia intended for the first time to take part as an observer at the Cartagena Conference.

The representative of Norway said her country had voted in favour of L.37,   but she questioned the value of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons dealing with issues already dealt with in other forums.  For example, half of the world had already signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions.  She did not see the need to create another implementation mechanism in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.  However, she welcomed open and frank discussions within the Convention’s framework.  The treaty’s value should be measured on the basis of its positive humanitarian efforts on the ground, she added.

The representative of Pakistan said that his country had abstained in the vote on L.53 because landmines played a significant role in the defence needs of States.  Given the need to guard long borders, the use of landmines formed a part of Pakistan’s defence strategy.  The goal of their total elimination meant making available cost-effective alternatives.  Pakistan was a party to the amended protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which concerned rules on landmine use.  Pakistan provided troops to peacekeeping operations and to other mine clearing initiatives, he added.

The representative of Mali said her country’s name should have appeared on the co-sponsor list of L.42/Rev.1

The representative of Singapore said his country had voted in favour of L.53.  Singapore had declared a moratorium on landmines in 1996 and further in 1998, on other types of mines.  The right defence of any State could not be hampered, so perhaps a total ban would be counter-productive.

The representative of India said the delegation had abstained on L.53, while still supporting the view of a world without landmines.  India had observed a moratorium on mine transfers.  The availability of alternatives to anti-personnel landmines would facilitate the achievement of the goal of the elimination of all landmines.  India had participated and would participate as an observer at all related conferences.

The representative of the Republic of Korea explained that his country had also abstained from voting on L.53.  Still, it was concerned about and committed to mitigating human suffering, and was enforcing a moratorium on mine exports.  The Republic of Korea was also part of initiatives and trust funds on mine clearing and related humanitarian activities.

The representative of Iran explained his delegation’s position of L.42/Rev.1, and its reservations on several paragraphs.  Iran felt that the outcome of the Third Biennial Meeting of States had fallen short of its goals and that the selective approach in dealing with the Programme of Action had not acceptable.  Iran had participated in meetings on the issues and he hoped the issues would be addressed.

The representative of Libya, explaining her country’s position on L.37, said that Libya was not a party to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.  The protocols did not deal with certain issues in an in-depth manner, particularly the planting of landmines by Second World War Powers.  She hoped the discussion of these issues would soon occur.

General Statements on Cluster 5: Regional disarmament and security

MICHEL REGIS ONANGA NDIAYE (Gabon), speaking on behalf of countries on the Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa, said that the draft resolution on Regional confidence-building measures:  activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/62/L.27), was the fruit of that group’s efforts. 

The Assembly would, by the draft, welcome the adoption by States members of the Standing Advisory Committee of the Code of Conduct for the Defence and Security Forces in Central Africa on 8 May and the major strides made by States in drafting a legal instrument on the control of small arms and light weapons in Central Africa.  The Assembly would encourage interested countries to provide financial support to the implementation of the “Sao Tome Initiative”.  It would also encourage the States members of the Standing Advisory Committee to continue their efforts to render the early-warning mechanism for Central Africa fully operational as an instrument for analysing and monitoring the political situation in the subregion, within the framework of the prevention of crises and armed conflicts, and request the Secretary-General to provide the necessary assistance for its smooth functioning.

By further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would appeal to the international community to support the efforts undertaken by the States concerned to implement disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes. It would also request the Secretary-General and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to continue their assistance to the countries of Central Africa in tackling the problems of refugees and displaced persons in their territories and to continue to provide their full assistance for the proper functioning of the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa.

Action of Texts

The Committee then approved, without a vote, the draft resolution on Regional confidence-building measures: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa (document A/C.1/62/L.27).

General Statements, Drafts Introductions

When the Committee took up drafts in Cluster 6, on other disarmament measures and international security, Mrs. SANCHEZ-QUINTERO ( Cuba) said her delegation had co-sponsored the draft text on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/C.1/64/L.39).  She said that the text appropriately stressed the need to prevent the use of information technology resources for criminal or terrorist ends.  Cuba was compelled by the radio and television aggression the United States had conducted against Cuba.  That was an open violation of international laws.  The Government of the United States transmitted radio and television to Cuba, at a rate of more than 2,300 hours a week on different frequencies and bandwidths. 

Action on Texts

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft resolution on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/C.1/64/L.39).

By its terms, the Assembly would call upon Member States to promote further at multilateral levels the consideration of existing and potential threats in the field of information security, as well as possible measures to limit the threats emerging in this field, consistent with the need to preserve the free flow of information.

The Assembly would consider that the purpose of such measures could be served through the examination of relevant international concepts aimed at strengthening the security of global information and telecommunications systems and it would invite all Member States to continue to inform the Secretary-General of their views and assessments on questions, including the general appreciation of the issues of information security, the efforts taken at the national level to strengthen information security and promote international cooperation in this field and the possible measures that could be taken by the international community to strengthen information security at the global level.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/64/L.50).

The text would have the Assembly continue to take the view that an enhanced level of transparency in armaments contributes to confidence-building and security among States and that the establishment of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms constitutes an important step forward in promoting transparency in military matters, stressing that the Register’s continued operation and further development should be reviewed in order to secure a Register capable of attracting the widest possible participation.

By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would call upon Member States with a view to achieving universal participation, to provide the Secretary-General, by 31 May annually, with the requested data and information for the Register, and invite Member States in a position to do so to provide additional information and procurement through national production and military holdings and to make use of the “Remarks” column in the standardized reporting form to provide additional information such as types or models.

First, a separate recorded vote was taken on operative paragraph 3, which reads: “Calls upon Member States, with a view to achieving universal participation, to provide the Secretary-General, by 31 May annually, with the requested data and information for the Register, including nil reports if appropriate, on the basis of resolutions 46/36 L and 47/52 L, the recommendations contained in paragraph 64 of the 1997 report of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development,the recommendations contained in paragraph 94 of the 2000 report of the Secretary-General and the appendices and annexes thereto,the recommendations contained in paragraphs 112 to 114 of the 2003 report of the Secretary-General,the recommendations contained in paragraphs 123 to 127 of the 2006 report of the Secretary-Generaland the recommendations contained in paragraphs 71 to 75 of the 2009 report of the Secretary-General”.

The Committee approved operative paragraph 3 by a vote of 147 in favour to none against, with 24 abstentions (Annex VI).

Next, a separate recorded vote was taken on operative paragraph 4, which reads:  “Invites Member States in a position to do so, pending further development of the Register, to provide additional information on procurement through national production and military holdings and to make use of the “Remarks” column in the standardized reporting form to provide additional information such as types or models”.

Operative Paragraph 4 was retained by a vote of 147 in favour to none against, with 24 abstentions (Annex VII).

The representative of Libya said that her country’s vote on operative paragraph 3 should be recorded as an abstention.

A separate vote was then taken on operative paragraph 5, which reads:  “Also invites Member States in a position to do so to provide additional information on transfers of small arms and light weapons on the basis of the optional standardized reporting form, as adopted by the 2006 group of governmental experts,or by any other methods they deem appropriate”.

The Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 5 by 149 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex VIII).

Next, a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 6(d) which reads: “Requests the Secretary-General, with a view to the three-year cycle regarding review of the Register, to ensure that sufficient resources are made available for a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2012, to review the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, taking into account the work of the Conference on Disarmament, the views expressed by Member States and the reports of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development”.

By a vote of 147 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions, operative paragraph 6(d) of the draft resolution was approved (Annex IX).

The Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 6 as a whole by 148 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex X).

The Committee next took a separate vote on operative paragraph 8,which reads:  “Invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments”, retaining that provision by

146 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions (Annex XI).

The draft resolution as a whole was then approved by a vote of 150 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex XII).

Explanations of vote after the vote

The representative of Sudan said, speaking that on behalf of the Arab League of States on L.50, said that the League members had been stressing their position on transparency in armaments and the United Nations Register.  Those opinions had been based on the specific situation in the Middle East.  The Register had been the international community’s first attempt to deal with transparency at the world level.  There was no question about the value of the Register as tool for progress in building confidence, but problems had been created because half of the United Nations membership did not make use of it.

He said that there was a need to widen the scope of the Register because experience had shown that it dealt with only certain weapons, and it was not being implemented.  It should contain additional data about conventional weapons, and on weapons of mass destruction.  That would make the Register a much better and less selective tool, able to guarantee the participation of a large number of States. There was presently no qualitative balance in terms of weapons currently covered.

Transparency should be dealt with in a global and balanced way; the Register currently dealt with conventional weapons alone, while ignoring advanced weapons, particularly nuclear weapons.  It also did not take into account the Middle East situation where Israel still occupied Arab territory and possessed nuclear weapons, and remained outside the NPT.  That country continued to ignore international opinions.  The majority of Member States had rejected Israel’s behaviour.  It was for those reasons that members of the Arab League had abstained from the voting on the draft resolution.

The representative of Syria reaffirmed full support for the position of the Arab league on L.50.  His country fully supported the universal desire to establish an international community free of threats of the use of force and was ready to participate in any international effort in good faith to achieve that goal.  The draft resolution did not take into account the special situation in the Middle East, where the Arab-Israeli conflict had persisted because of Israel’s continued occupation of Arab territory and its refusal to join the NPT. Certain States were also supplying Israel with sophisticated weapons, in addition to its own local production.

The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union on draft resolution L.39, on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security, expressed support for the basic principle of that text that the dissemination and use of information technologies and means affected the interest of the entire international community and that optimum effectiveness was enhanced by broad international cooperation. The Union was concerned that those technologies and means could potentially be used for purposes that were inconsistent with the objectives of maintaining international stability and security and might adversely affect the integrity of the infrastructure of States to the detriment of their security, in both civil and military fields.  The threat of cyber security could originate from coordinated attacks by organised criminals, non-State actors, including extremists and terrorists, and individually and politically motivated hackers. 

He emphasized the need to ensure a proper balance between the interest of law enforcement and respect for fundamental human rights. Those rights were enshrined in the 1950 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other applicable international human rights treaties, which reaffirmed the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference, as well as the right to freedom of expression and the rights concerning the respect for privacy and the protection of personal data.  One of the effective ways to fight criminal or illegal use of information technologies was for States to criminalize the misuse of information technology and implement measures designed to prevent damage to critical information infrastructure, regardless of the source of the threat.  In that regard, he called on all States to accede to the “Convention on Cyber crime” of the Council of Europe, which was open for accession to non-members of that Council.

ANNEX I

Vote on Renewed Determination to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/64/L.36*) was approved by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 2 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India.

Abstain:  Bhutan, China, Cuba, France, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan.

Absent:  Belize, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Namibia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda.

ANNEX II

Vote on Illicit Small Arms, Light Weapons Trade, Operative Paragraph 4

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on the illicit trade in      small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/64/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 177 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, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, 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, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, 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:  Iran.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Illicit Small Arms, Light Weapons Trade, Operative Paragraph 15

Operative paragraph 15 of the draft resolution on the illicit trade in      small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/64/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 177 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, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, 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, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, 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:   Iran.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Illicit Small Arms, Light Weapons Trade

The draft resolution as a whole on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/C.1/64/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to none against, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, 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, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, 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.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Mine-Ban Convention

The draft resolution on Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on their Destruction (document A/C.1/64/L.53) was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, 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, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

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

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, operative paragraph 3

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments         (document A/C.1/64/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 147 in favour to none against, with 24 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, operative paragraph 4

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments          (document A/C.1/64/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 147 in favour to none against, with 24 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, operative paragraph 5

Operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments        (document A/C.1/64/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Viet Nam.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, operative paragraph 6 D

Operative paragraph 6 D of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments         (document A/C.1/64/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 147 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Viet Nam.

ANNEX X

Vote on Transparency in Armaments, operative paragraph 6 as a whole

Operative paragraph 6 as a whole of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/64/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 148 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments         (document A/C.1/64/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments

The draft resolution as a whole on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/64/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, Viet Nam.

* *** *

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