Nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East – First Cttee debate – Verbatim record (excerpts)

Official Records

General Assembly

Fifty-fifth session

First Committee

28th meeting

Wednesday, 1 November 2000, 3 p.m.

New York

President:  Mr. U Mya Than…………………….(Myanmar)

The meeting was called to order at 3.45 p.m.

Agenda items 65 to 81 ( continued)

Action on all draft resolutions submitted under all items

  The Chairman: As delegations were informed at this morning’s meeting of the Committee, this afternoon the Committee will take action on all remaining draft resolutions appearing in informal working paper No. 6, in the sequence indicated in that informal working paper, with the exception of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.1, which will be considered after action has been taken on the other draft resolutions because the parties concerned are still carrying out consultations.

/…

 The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.1. I call on those delegations wishing to explain their position or vote before a decision is taken on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.1.

 Mr. Khan (Pakistan): We are taking the floor to explain Pakistan’s vote before the voting on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.1. Pakistan believes that a ban on the production of fissile material can be promoted only through a universal, non-discriminatory and internationally verifiable treaty negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. Pakistan was able to support General Assembly resolutions 48/75 L of 1993 and 53/77 I of 1998.

  We have agreed to open talks on a fissile materials treaty in the Conference on Disarmament that addresses both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation aspects. As envisaged in the Shannon Report, Pakistan will seek a solution to the problem of existing unequal stockpiles in the course of the negotiations. Pakistan agrees that the Conference on Disarmament should adopt a programme of work that includes negotiations on such a fissile materials treaty. Since the revised draft resolution is consistent with its policy, Pakistan will be happy to join in its adoption without a vote. 

  The Chairman: The Committee will now take a decision on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.1.

  I call on the Secretary of the Committee.

 Mr. Lin Kuo-chung (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.1, entitled “The Conference on Disarmament decision (CD/1547) of 11 August 1998 to establish, under item 1 of its agenda entitled ‘Cessation of the nuclear-arms race and nuclear disarmament’, an ad hoc committee to negotiate, on the basis of the report of the Special Coordinator (CD/1299) and the mandate contained therein, a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”, was introduced by the representative of Canada at the Committee’s 25th meeting, on 30 October 2000. The following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Guatemala, Finland, France, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Kenya, Lithuania, Mali, Malaysia, Monaco, Myanmar, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  The Chairman: The sponsors of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.1 have expressed the wish that it be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly.

  Draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.1 was adopted.

  The Chairman: I now call upon those delegations wishing to explain their position on the draft resolution just adopted.

 Mr. Bar (Israel): Israel has joined the consensus on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev.1 because we believe that the objective of a fissile material cut-off treaty is relevant in the Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone concept. Israel’s approach to that concept was elaborated in our delegation’s explanation of vote on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.16, entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East”. In practical terms assessing the modalities of this draft resolution cannot be done in isolation from the peace process in all its aspects and the overall effort to reduce tensions, curb proliferation and limit armaments in our region.

/…

 The Chairman: The Committee will now consider draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.34. If no delegations wish to explain their vote or position on the draft resolution before action is taken, the Committee will now take a decision on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.34.

  I call on the Secretary of the Committee.

 Mr. Lin Kuo-chung (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.34, entitled “ Regional disarmament”, was introduced by the representative of Pakistan at the Committee’s 18th meeting, on 19 October 2000. The sponsors of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.34 are listed in the draft resolution itself. 

  The Chairman: The sponsors of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.34 have expressed the wish that it be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly.

  Draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.34 was adopted.

  The Chairman: If no delegations wish to explain their position on the draft resolution just adopted, the Committee will proceed to cluster 6. I call first on delegations wishing to make general statements or comments on draft resolutions contained in cluster 6, confidence-building measures, including transparency in armaments.

 Mr. Abubaker (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (spoke in Arabic ): On behalf of the Arab Group, which the delegation of Libya is chairing this month, has taken the floor in order to make some remarks on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43, in connection with the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.

  The members of the League of Arab States have for some years been expressing their views with regard to the entire matter of transparency in armaments, encompassing as it does the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. These views are clear and well established and are based on a general orientation with respect to international disarmament issues and a particular, regional one that is determined by the specific character of the situation in the Middle East. The following points set forth the Arab position in this regard. 

  The members of the League of Arab States advocate transparency in armaments as a means of enhancing international peace and security and believe that, in order to be successful, any transparency mechanism must be guided by certain basic principles: it must be balanced, comprehensive and non-discriminatory — I repeat, balanced, comprehensive and non-discriminatory — and it must enhance the national, regional and international security of all States in conformity with international law.

  The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms represents a long-overdue first attempt by the international community to address the transparency issue at a global level. Despite the fact that the potential value of the Register as a global confidence-building measure and early-warning mechanism cannot be questioned, it has encountered a number of problems. Most noticeably, approximately one half of the States Members of the United Nations have consistently refrained from submitting data to the Register.

  In this context, the members of the League of Arab States are of the view that the scope of the Register must be expanded — I repeat, the scope of the Register must be expanded — particularly as the experience of past years has shown that the Register, which is limited to seven categories of conventional arms, will not attract universal participation. Numerous States, including the members of the League, do not consider that the Register, given its present limited scope, adequately meets their security needs. The future success of the Register is therefore contingent upon the willingness of the members of the international community to engage in greater transparency and to build greater confidence. In our view, and as envisaged in the Register’s founding resolution, General Assembly resolution 46/36 L, an expanded Register including data on advanced conventional weapons, on weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, and on high technology with military applications would represent a more balanced, more comprehensive and less discriminatory instrument attracting a larger number of regular participants.

  The Middle East region represents a special case in this context, one in which the qualitative imbalance in armaments is striking and in which transparency and confidence can come about only if approached in a balanced and comprehensive way. Applying transparency in the Middle East region to seven categories of conventional weapons while ignoring more advanced, more sophisticated or more lethal armaments, such as weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, is an approach that is neither balanced nor comprehensive. It will not yield the desired results, especially since the Register does not take into consideration the existing situation in the Middle East, where Israel continues its occupation of Arab territories — I repeat, where Israel continues its occupation of Arab territories — maintains its possession of the most lethal weapons of mass destruction and is still the only State in the region that is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as it persists in defying repeated calls by the international community to accede to the Treaty and to place all of its nuclear facilities under the full-scope safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It was this that prompted the States parties to the Treaty, meeting at the 2000 Review Conference, to stress that it was essential for Israel to take these steps.

  The members of the League of Arab States regret that the Group of Governmental Experts that was convened in 2000 to consider the continuing operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and its further development failed, as had previous meetings of experts, to expand the scope of the Register to include military holdings and procurements from national production and that it also failed to incorporate weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons. This is incompatible with the provisions of General Assembly resolution 46/36 L, by which the Register was established. 

  This failure indicates the deadlock that has afflicted the operation of the Register and its consequent inadequacy in its present form to function as an effective means of building confidence or as an early-warning mechanism.

  In the light of the above, the members of the League of Arab States are of the view that their aforesaid concerns must be addressed effectively and in such a manner as to ensure universal participation in the Register and hence its fulfilment of the role assigned to it as a means of building confidence and an early-warning mechanism that can be relied upon.

 Mr. Bar (Israel): Without wishing to do so in reference to this particular draft resolution, I wish to reply to the statement just made. I want to reject forcefully the abuse by the Libyan representative, in the name of the Arab League, of this draft resolution in order to proffer political insults against my country and against its political position and security policy. 

  There are several questions that are being addressed by at least two other draft resolutions dealing directly with the Middle East, and one of them is a consensus draft resolution. It is wrong and unfaithful to discuss the need to arrive at a compromise and the need for countries in our region to arrive at a decision accepted by all countries in the framework of a draft resolution that deals with transparency in armaments, a transparency in which many countries of the Arab League refuse to take part by using the excuse of their political position vis-à-vis Israel.

  I did not wish to speak on this draft resolution, but the Committee should not be used or abused by delegations to express political insults and assaults against the positions of other countries.

/…

 The Chairman: Before we proceed further, I wish to clarify one point with regard to cluster 5. We have taken action on the draft resolution under cluster 5. In that cluster, document A/C.1/55/L.53, which is an amendment to draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.34, and draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.46/Rev.1 have been withdrawn by their sponsors.

  The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43. I call first on those delegations wishing to explain their vote or position on the draft resolution before a decision is taken.

/…

 Mr. Mekdad (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic ): The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic wishes to emphasize its full support for the position of the Arab States members of the League of Arab States concerning the issues of transparency in armaments, as contained in document A/55/299/Add.2/annex II of 16 October 2000, the content of which was conveyed by the representative of Libya as Chairman of the Arab Group earlier in this meeting.

  The Syrian Arab Republic emphasizes its support for the tendency towards building an international community free of the use or threat of use of force and in which the principles of fairness, justice and peace prevail. While we emphasize our readiness to participate in any international effort aimed with goodwill at achieving that objective, we draw the attention of the First Committee to the fact that the draft resolution entitled “Transparency in armaments” does not take into account the special situation in the Middle East region, where the Arab-Israeli conflict is still raging because of the continued occupation by Israel of the Arab territories, its refusal to implement the relevant Security Council resolutions, its acquisition of the most sophisticated and lethal weapons and its capacity to manufacture and stockpile various sophisticated types of weapons, particularly nuclear weapons. All this shows that the transparency claimed by Israel in the field of armaments involves only a very small part of its huge arsenal of sophisticated lethal weapons.

  For these reasons, my delegation will abstain in the voting on the draft resolution entitled “Transparency in armaments”.

/…

 Mr. Bar (Israel): I apologize for taking the floor again, but there are several Arab States and only one Israel. Israel is a sponsor of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43. Israel also participates faithfully in the United Nations Register, unlike many countries in our neighbourhood. Some countries in this neighbourhood, the Middle East, continue to stockpile weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The issues of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction has been treated in other clusters in the First Committee, and Israel’s position regarding the nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East has been made clear. The question of the Middle East is also being taken up by other United Nations bodies.

  The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the representative of Israel, but I call on the representative of Syria on a point of order.

 Mr. Mekdad (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic ): For the second time the delegation of Israel has taken the floor. In its first intervention it responded to the statement made by the delegation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on behalf of the Arab States. We think that the right of reply as practised in this Committee and in other committees should be made at the end of the meeting. Why is there a violation of the procedures? I do not know under what rule the Israeli delegation is speaking when it is a sponsor. To my mind, the Israeli delegation has no such right. I request clarification, Mr. Chairman.

 The Chairman: I shall respond to that. I have discovered that Israel is a sponsor of this draft resolution. I have called on delegations wishing to explain their vote. The sponsors of the draft resolution cannot explain their votes before the voting.

  The Committee will now take a decision on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43.

  Separate votes on the fifth preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 2, 5 (b) and 7 have been requested.

  The Committee will first vote on the fifth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43. A recorded vote has been requested.

  I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.

  Mr. Lin Kuo-chung (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43, entitled “ Transparency in armaments”, was introduced by the representative of the Netherlands at the Committee’s 17th meeting, on 18 October 2000. The sponsors of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43 are listed in the document itself and in document A/C.1/55/INF.2. In addition, the following countries have become sponsors of the draft resolution: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Jamaica, Mozambique, Papua New Guinea, Senegal and Uzbekistan.

  The Committee will now vote on the fifth preambular paragraph, which reads as follows:

   “Welcoming further the note by the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development”.

 A recorded vote was taken. 

In favour:

  Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against:

  Egypt, Syrian Arab Republic

Abstaining:

  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Jordan, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates

  The fifth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43 was retained by 134 votes to 2, with 12 abstentions.

 The Chairman: The Committee will now take a decision on operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43. A recorded vote has been requested.

  I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.

  Mr. Lin Kuo-chung (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now vote on operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43, which reads as follows: 

   “Endorses the report of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development and the recommendations contained therein”.

 A recorded vote was taken. 

In favour:

  Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against: 

 Egypt, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic

Abstaining:

  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates

  Operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43 was retained by 136 votes to 3, with 11 abstentions.

 The Chairman: The Committee will now take a decision on operative 5 (b) of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43. A recorded vote has been requested.

  I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.

  Mr. Lin Kuo-chung (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now vote on operative paragraph 5 (b) of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43, which reads as follows:

   “Reaffirms its decision with a view to further development of the Register, to keep the scope of and participation in the Register under review, and, to that end:

   “(b)  Requests the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2003, on the basis of equitable geographical representation, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, taking into account 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, with a view to a decision at its fifty-eighth session”.

  A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

  Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against:

  Egypt, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic

Abstaining:

  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates

  Operative paragraph 5 (b) of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43 was retained by 135 votes to 3, with 12 abstentions.

 The Chairman: The Committee will now take a decision on operative paragraph 7 of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43. A recorded vote has been requested.

  I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.

  Mr. Lin Kuo-chung (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now vote on operative paragraph 7 of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43, which reads as follows: 

   “Invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments”.

  A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

  Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against: 

 None

Abstaining:

  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jordan, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates

  Operative paragraph 7 of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43 was retained by 132 votes to none, with 16 abstentions.

 The Chairman: The Committee will now take a decision on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43 as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested.

  I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.

  Mr. Lin Kuo-chung (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now vote on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43 as a whole.

 A recorded vote was taken. 

In favour:

  Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samo a, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against: 

 None

Abstaining:

  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jordan, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates

  Draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.43 as a whole was adopted by 133 votes to none, with 17 abstentions.

 The Chairman: I now call upon those delegations wishing to explain their vote or position on the draft resolution just adopted.

/…

  The Chairman: If no other delegation wishes to take the floor at this stage, the only draft resolution remaining is A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2, which has just been circulated for the Committee’s consideration. I call on the delegation of Egypt to introduce the revised draft resolution.

 Mr. Darwish (Egypt): It is my pleasure to introduce the revision in draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. The revision is to the sixth preambular paragraph. After “nuclear activities,” the following words have been added: 

  “and underlines the necessity of universal adherence to the Treaty and of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the Treaty”.

  The Egyptian delegation had extensive consultations with all delegations on this revision, which is taken from the language of the resolution adopted during the sixth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). My delegation therefore requests that the 24-hour rule pertaining to taking decisions on draft resolutions be waived.

 The Chairman: Delegations have heard the representative of Egypt. Draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2 is before the Committee. The 24-hour rule is rule 120 of the rules of procedure, but the Committee is its own master and may dispense with the rule and take action on the draft resolution. Is there any objection to considering draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2 now?

  Mr. Mohammed (Iraq) (spoke in Arabic): First I should like to state that the draft resolution was submitted by Egypt on behalf of a number of Arab States. Iraq, a member of the League of Arab States, is not among the sponsors. Therefore, my delegation wishes to express strong reservations about the last part of the sixth preambular paragraph in document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2, which, as orally revised, states:

  “and underlines the necessity of universal adherence to the Treaty and of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the Treaty”.

  My delegation has reservations for the following reasons: first, all States of the region except the Zionist entity are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). States that have nuclear facilities or undertake nuclear activities have signed arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and honour their obligations under the safeguards system. The IAEA has never issued any statement to the contrary, and therefore the revision is ambiguous and unwarranted, because the only State that refuses to accede to the Treaty and to place its nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards system is the Zionist entity. That entity is developing nuclear weapons with the help of a depositary State of the NPT, namely, the United States of America. Work was supposed to be done to make an explicit reference here to the fact that the assistance by the United States of America to Israel in order to develop its nuclear weapons and to protect that entity from any international action has led Israel not to accede to the NPT. The United States assistance to and cooperation with the Zionist entity in the area of nuclear armaments is well known. Since the February 2000 agreement which would allow nuclear scientists —

 The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt, but delegations should not yet be explaining their position on the substance of the draft resolution. The Committee is considering the procedural aspect and whether we should or should not take up the draft resolution this evening. I therefore ask the representative of Iraq to conclude his statement.

/…

 The Chairman: I first call upon delegations wishing to make general statements on cluster 1, nuclear weapons.

 Mr. Mohammed (Iraq) ( spoke in Arabic ): My remarks will be general regarding draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2, submitted by Egypt. My delegation has reservations regarding the draft resolution for the following reasons.

  All countries in the Middle East region except the Zionist entity are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Countries that possess nuclear facilities or undertake nuclear programmes have signed safeguards arrangements with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The safeguards are not observed by the Zionist entity, and with the help of the United States of America it is developing nuclear weapons. That is obvious from the nuclear cooperation between the two countries since the signing of their February 2000 agreement. That is the primary factor preventing universal adherence to the Treaty, and that must be referred to explicitly in the draft resolution. As I indicated, all other countries in the region have acceded to the Treaty and are committed to the safeguards system. Therefore, my delegation wishes to state that Iraq did not join the Arab Group in sponsoring this draft. Had we been allowed to make suggestions we would have suggested a separate vote on the sixth preambular paragraph, and if that paragraph is put to the vote we will vote against it.

 The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2. I call first on those delegations wishing to explain their vote or position on the draft resolution before a decision is taken. 

  Mr. Khan (Pakistan): My delegation is taking the floor to explain its vote before the voting on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.

  My delegation will support the draft resolution, as, in our view, given the title and scope of the draft resolution, its provisions are applicable only to the Middle East region.

 Mr. Grey (United States of America): Since the inception of draft resolutions on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the United States has opposed the texts. This year’s version continues the tradition of a one-sided attack on one country in the region and presents an inaccurate picture of the nuclear-weapons-proliferation problem in the region.

/…

  The inaccuracies and omissions in the draft resolution include the following: no mention of one country in the region that has been found to be in non-compliance with the NPT; no mention of the steps being taken by some countries in the region to develop the capability to acquire nuclear weapons, despite being parties to the NPT; no mention of Middle East States that have failed to live up to their NPT obligations to conclude safeguards agreements; and no call on Middle East States to join the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and to sign the additional safeguards Protocol with the IAEA.

  At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, hard work resulted in agreement on a meaningful statement on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. That cooperative effort led to the first consensus NPT Review Conference Final Document in years and should be promoted as a model for addressing proliferation in the Middle East. Instead, this draft resolution takes selective passages from the Final Document of the NPT Review Conference, uses them out of context, and distorts the record. That is disappointing and should be unacceptable to the States that have participated in the development of, and have a stake in, the NPT Review Conference Final Document.

  We see this draft resolution as a step backwards from the cooperative spirit engendered last May, when we worked together to address our mutual interests in promoting nuclear non-proliferation at the NPT Review Conference. It is also a step away from cooperative efforts to address the applications of safeguards in the Middle East at this year’s IAEA General Conference. In sum, the United States believes this draft resolution not only fails to promote non-proliferation in the Middle East but may actually work against that important objective. My delegation will vote against the draft resolution and calls on others to join us in not supporting it. Voting against the draft resolution will send a strong message that unbalanced and partial resolutions are not the best way to address non-proliferation in the Middle East. 

  Mr. Bar (Israel): The First Committee is again called upon to vote on a draft resolution entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2, a draft resolution that is blatantly one-sided, contentious and divisive and has the potential to undermine rather than enhance confidence among the States of the region.

  Since the draft resolution was first presented many developments have occurred in the nuclear realm in the Middle East, not the least of which is the sombre experience gained by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) action team. In addition, other efforts are under way to acquire weapons of mass destruction and missile capabilities in the region, as our delegation pointed out during the general debate.

  The bias of the draft resolution stems from its neglect of the fact that the real risk of proliferation in the Middle East emanates from countries that, despite being States parties to international treaties, do not comply with their relevant international obligations. Those countries are engaged in ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, efforts that have a dangerously destabilizing effect not only in the region but on the global scale as well. Adopting a draft resolution that does not reflect this reality will not serve the greater objective of curbing proliferation in the Middle East.

  This draft resolution focuses entirely on one country that has never threatened its neighbours or abrogated its obligation under any disarmament treaty. Moreover, it singles out Israel in a manner that no other United Nations Member State is being singled out in the First Committee. Singling out Israel in this manner is counter-productive to confidence-building and peace in the region and does not lend this body any dignity. The constructive approach demonstrated during the deliberations on the draft resolution entitled “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East” is strongly undermined by the introduction of this biased draft resolution. Resolutions regarding the complex arms control reality in the Middle East should focus on objective ways to address the problems as they exist.

  Although we find the approach embodied in the draft resolution objectionable, the text submitted for the entire consideration of the First Committee this year has undergone a series of changes, which has resulted in even harsher language directed at Israel. The use of language which purports to represent, in an unbalanced way, part of the Final Document of the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) undermines the internal compromise which that document was based upon. That remains true despite the reference, made in the new revision just presented by the Egyptian delegation, to the need for NPT member States to strictly comply with their obligations under that Treaty. It is for us to guess which member State or States in the Middle East they might have had in mind. That for some countries this reflects a balanced reflection of the NPT Review Conference is a source of very great disappointment for us.

  The First Committee should not become a venue for political discrimination. We call upon representatives to vote against the draft resolution in order to demonstrate disapproval of singling out Israel and this approach as a whole.

 The Chairman: The Committee will now take a decision on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2.

  A separate vote on the sixth preambular paragraph has been requested. 

  The Committee will first vote on the sixth preambular paragraph. A recorded vote has been requested.

  I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.

  Mr. Lin Kuo-chung (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”, was introduced by the representative of Egypt at the Committee’s 28th meeting, on 1 November 2000, on behalf of some States Members of the United Nations that are members of the League of Arab States. In addition, Afghanistan has become a sponsor of the draft resolution.

  The Committee will now vote on the sixth preambular paragraph, which reads as follows:

   “ Recognizing with satisfaction that, in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Conference undertakes to make determined efforts towards the achievement of the goal of universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and calls upon those remaining States not party to the Treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities, and underlines the necessity of universal adherence to the Treaty and of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the Treaty”.

  A recorded vote was taken.

In favour:

  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, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against: 

 India, Israel

Abstaining:

  Bhutan, Cuba, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Tonga

  The sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2 was retained by 138 votes to 2, with 5 abstentions.

  [Subsequently, the delegation of Tunisia informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]

 The Chairman: The Committee will now take a decision on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2 as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. 

  I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting.

  Mr. Lin Kuo-chung (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now vote on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2 as a whole.

 A recorded vote was taken. 

In favour:

  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Against:

  Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States of America 

Abstaining:

  Australia, Canada, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago

  Draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2 as a whole was adopted by 139 votes to 3, with 7 abstentions.

  [Subsequently, the delegation of the Gambia informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]

 The Chairman: I call now on those delegations wishing to explain their positions or votes.

 Mr. Mukul (India): The Indian delegation has requested the floor to explain its vote after the voting on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. India abstained in the voting on the draft resolution as a whole and voted against the sixth preambular paragraph, which makes a reference to the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, on which our position is well known. Besides, we believe that the focus of the draft resolution should necessarily be limited to the region it purports to address. India considers that the multifarious issues addressed in the draft resolution have received widespread consideration in the international community and hopes that progress will be made on the issues involved in the coming years through positive contributions by the States concerned of the region.

 Mr. De la Fortelle (France) (spoke in French ): It is my honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe associated with the European Union — Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia — and the associated countries Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, as well as Iceland, as a country of the European Free Trade Association and member of the European Economic Area, associate themselves with this statement.

  The European Union, as in previous years with similar draft resolutions, voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2, entitled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”. It did so taking fully into account the new element represented by the adoption six months ago of the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which should be implemented in all of its aspects.

 Mr. Kongstad (Norway): I have asked for the floor to make an explanation of Norway’s vote on draft resolution A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2. We acknowledge the threats posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons to international and regional security and stability and fully share the commitment to nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. In this regard, we welcome and support the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

  Like other States, Norway believes that initiatives leading to substantive disarmament in the Middle East would greatly enhance peace and security in the region. Agreement on a comprehensive model for disarmament and non-proliferation in the Middle East could be an important step towards this goal. We believe that such a model, to be effective, should include all weapons of mass destruction, be balanced and be based on transparency. To achieve this we think it is important that no parties are singled out and that all parties strictly comply with commitments made to existing, relevant treaties. 

  In the past Norway has not been able to support draft resolutions on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East because it felt that the text was unbalanced and addressed only a selective part of the issue. We do not see this as being an adequate and constructive approach to the complex situation in the Middle East region. This year the draft resolution, with the addition introduced in revision 2 by the delegation of Egypt, includes an essential element by recognizing the necessity of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the NPT. That is an important step in the right direction towards addressing this issue in a more comprehensive way and taking into account the situation in the region in its totality. We want to encourage that approach, and therefore found it possible to vote in favour of the draft resolution.

 The Chairman: If no other delegation wishes to speak at this stage, the First Committee has thus concluded the final phase of its work, namely, action on all draft resolutions and decisions on disarmament and international security issues, as scheduled.

/…

  The meeting rose at 7.35 p.m.

This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of speeches delivered in the other languages. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-178. Corrections will be issued after the end of the session in a consolidated corrigendum.