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

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON ‘PATH TO TOTAL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS’

APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE, AS IT CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION

Also Approves Texts on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation,

Fissile Material, Arms Register, Regional Disarmament, Small Arms

The General Assembly would stress the central importance of taking practical steps to implement the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including early signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) by all States, as well as a moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other explosions pending its entry into force, according to a draft resolution entitled "a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons", which was one of six texts approved this afternoon by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), as it concluded its work for the current session.

A further provision of the text, approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 1 against (India), with 12 abstentions, would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of achieving the universality of the Treaty and call upon States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States without delay and without conditions.  (For details of the vote, see Annex II).

Prior to acting on the text, the Committee approved operative paragraph 8, which calls upon all States to redouble their efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery, confirming and strengthening, if necessary, their policies not to transfer equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to the proliferation of those weapons.  The provision was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Pakistan), with 11 abstentions.  (For details, see Annex I).

Under a draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the General Assembly would reaffirm the importance of Israel’s accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, in order to realize the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East.  The Assembly would also call upon that State to accede to the NPT without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards.  The draft was approved by a vote of 139 in favour to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States) with 7 abstentions (Australia, Canada, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago) (see Annex IX).

Prior to voting on the draft resolution as a whole, the Committee took a separate decision on preambular paragraph 6, which recognizes with satisfaction that, in the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the Conference undertakes to make determined efforts towards the achievement of the goal of universality of the Treaty, and calls upon those remaining States not party to it to accede to it, thereby accepting an internationally legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities.  The paragraph was approved by a vote of 138 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Tonga) (see Annex VIII).

A third nuclear weapons draft, approved without a vote, would have the Assembly recall the decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish a committee to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty, and urge the Conference to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty.  

A draft text on transparency in armaments would have the Assembly call upon Member States, with a view to achieving universal participation in the Register of Conventional Arms, to provide the Secretary-General by 31 May annually the requested data and information for the Register, including nil reports if appropriate.  The Assembly would reaffirm its decision, with a view to further the Register’s development, to keep the scope of and participation of the Register under review.  The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions.  (See Annex VII.)

Before taking a decision on the draft as a whole, four separate votes were taken on the fifth preambular paragraph, and operative paragraphs 2, 5(b) and 7.  The fifth preambular paragraph, approved by a vote of 134 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Syria), with 12 abstentions, would have the Assembly welcome the note by the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development.  (Annex III)

Operative paragraph 2, by which the Assembly would endorse the report of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development and the recommendations contained therein, was approved by a vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria), with 11 abstentions (see Annex IV).

By the terms of operative paragraph 5(b), the Assembly would request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2003, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, taking into account work of the Conference on Disarmament, with 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.  The Committee approved that provision by a vote of 135 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria) with 12 abstentions.  (See Annex V.)

Operative paragraph 7, approved by a vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 16 abstentions, would have the Assembly invite the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments.  (See Annex VI.)

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a text on regional disarmament by which the Assembly would affirm that global and regional approaches to disarmament complemented each other and should, therefore, be pursued simultaneously to promote regional and international peace and security.  In that context, the Assembly would call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels.

/…

An introduction of the revised draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was made by the representative of Egypt.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Syria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, United Kingdom, France (on behalf of the European Union), Iran, Russian Federation, Algeria, Israel, Japan, Libya (on behalf of the Arab States), Mexico, Oman, Cuba, Myanmar, Iraq, United States, India, and Norway.

The Committee will meet again at a date and time to be announced.

Committee Work Programme

/…

A revised draft text sponsored by Egypt on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.1) would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of Israel’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, in realizing the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East.

The Assembly would call upon that State to accede to the Treaty without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.  It would ask the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its next session on the implementation of the present resolution.

The revised text adds a new operative paragraph 1, by which the Assembly would welcome the conclusions on the Middle East of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

Action on Texts

/…

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the 1998 decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish a committee to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty (document A/C.1/55/L.49/Rev. 1) without a vote.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Israel said that his country joined in the consensus on the draft resolution.  It believed that assessing the modalities for negotiating the fissile material cut-off treaty could not be done in isolation of the peace process and the effort to limit armaments in that Middle East region.

/…

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43).

The representative of Libya, speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, said that the members of the League promoted transparency in armaments. In order to be successful, any mechanism for promoting transparency in armaments should be balanced, comprehensive and non-discriminatory, and should promote the security of all States.  The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms represented an attempt to address transparency in armaments at the global level. The Register had, however, encountered a number of problems, as almost one half of United Nations Member States had consistently failed to submit data for the Register.

The Register’s scope should be expanded, particularly as experience had shown that being limited to seven categories, it would not attract universal participation, he continued.  In its present scope, it did not adequately meet the security needs of many countries.  The future success of the Register was contingent on the willingness of the international community to build greater transparency.  The Register should be advanced to include weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, so as to make it a more comprehensive and balanced instrument.  The Register, at present, did not take into account the existing situation in Middle East, where Israel continued to occupy Arab territory and to maintain nuclear weapons.  Israel was the only non-signatory to the NPT in the Middle East region and it continued to disregard the calls to become party to the NPT and to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.  Those concerns should be addressed effectively, so as to ensure universal participation in the Register.

The representative of Israel, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that he rejected the use of statements on the draft resolution before the Committee to launch political insults against his country.  Many countries within the Arab League had refused to take part in transparency in disarmament.

Speaking on explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Egypt said that his country had always contributed to matters relating to transparency in disarmament.  For the United Nations Register to attain its goal, it should be universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory.  It should also ensure equal rights for all States and should provide the boldest degree of transparency in a non-selective manner.  In its present form, the Register did not meet the needs of Egypt.  Only an expanded Register that covered all weapons could meet those needs.  He stressed the importance of revising and expanding the Register to include weapons of mass destruction.  His delegation was disappointed at the outcome of the work of the group of experts in 2000.  It would, therefore, abstain in the vote.

The representative of Pakistan said that his country had been submitting data regularly to the Register.  It could, however, not support the convening of another group of experts.  That was unwarranted.  He would, therefore, abstain in the vote.

The representative of Mexico said that his Government supported the Register and transparency in military matters, but would abstain in the vote on the draft because of the provisions of operative paragraph 7, which invited the Conference on Disarmament to continue its work on transparency in disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament had not undertaken any work in that field for many years.  Its work in that field had led to the creation of the Register and that exhausted its work.  The draft did not indicate what the Conference would now do.

The representative of Oman said that, traditionally, his country had supported the draft resolution because of its conviction that the Register was a first step toward transparency in armaments.  The Register, however, had some marked shortcomings, including its failure to address the legitimate concerns of all States.  It also chose a limited area to address, while ignoring others.  It was not a comprehensive arms register.

The representative of Syria said that his country fully supported the position of the Arab states on transparency in armaments.  The draft did not take into account the particular situation in the Middle East, where the Arab/Israeli conflict was still raging because of Israel’s continued occupation of Arab territories and its continued acquisition of lethal weapons, including nuclear weapons.  Syria would abstain in the vote.

The representative of Iran said that his country believed in a comprehensive approach towards transparency in armaments.  The Register was considered a first step in transparency.  It was unfortunate that the initiation of transparency in nuclear weapons had been resisted and, as a result, the development of the Register was limited.  The draft resolution had not addressed fundamental elements that needed to be seriously considered in promoting transparency in armaments.  He would, therefore, abstain in the vote.

The representative of Israel, said his country was a co-sponsor of the draft and participated in the Register, unlike many countries in the Middle East.  Many of those countries continued to stockpile weapons.

The representative of Syria, on point of order, said that the representative of Israel was taking to the floor for the second time on the right of reply.  The right of reply should be at the end of the meeting. Besides, as a sponsor of the draft under consideration, Israel should not have been able to make statements in explanation of its vote.  Those actions were violations of the rules of procedure.

The Secretary of the Committee announced that Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Mozambique, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Papua New Guinea had joined as sponsors of the draft resolution.

Separate votes were held on the fifth preambular paragraph, operative paragraph 2, operative paragraph 5(b) and operative paragraph 7.

Preambular paragraph 5, which reads “Welcoming further the note by the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development”, was approved by a vote of 134 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Syria), with 12 abstentions (See Annex III).

Operative paragraph 2, which reads “Endorses the report of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development and the recommendations contained therein”, was approved by a vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria), with 11 abstentions (See Annex IV).

Operative paragraph 5(b) reads:  “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, with 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;”

Operative paragraph 5(b) was approved by a vote of 135 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria), with 12 abstentions (See Annex V).

Operative paragraph 7, which reads “Invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments", was approved by a vote of 132 in favour to none against, with

16 abstentions (See Annex VI).

The draft resolution as a whole on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was then approved by a vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions (See Annex VII).

/…

Introduction of Revised Draft Resolution

AHMED H. DARWISH (Egypt) introduced the revision to the draft resolution on risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2).  A revised sixth preambular paragraph 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 called upon those remaining States not party to the treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an internationally 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.”

He said his delegation had undertaken extensive consultations with all delegations pertaining to that revision, which was derived from the language of the resolution adopted during the Sixth Review Conference of the NPT.  He, therefore, would ask that the 24-hour rule pertaining to taking decisions on resolutions be waived.  

The Committee CHAIRMAN acknowledged the 24-hour rule, but said that the Committee was its own master.  It, thus, might dispense with that rule and take action on the text.

The representative of Iraq said that the draft resolution had been submitted by the Egyptian delegation on behalf of “some” Arab States.  Iraq, as a member of League of Arab States, had not been among them.  He would, therefore, like to express his strong reservations on the last part of the sixth preambular paragraph, which underlines the adherence to the NPT and strict compliance by all parties to the Treaty.  All States of the region except the Zionist entity were members of the NPT.  States which had nuclear facilities or nuclear activities had all signed arrangements with the IAEA safeguards system.  The Zionist entity was the only one in the region that had refused to accede to the Treaty and place its nuclear arsenals under IAEA safeguards.  That entity was developing nuclear weapons with the help of a depository State of the NPT, namely the United States.  What was needed was an explicit reference to that assistance by the United States to Israel, to aid in the development of its nuclear weapons and to protect that entity from any international action, which had led Israel not to accede to the NPT.

The CHAIRMAN interrupted the statement to state that the Committee was not explaining its position on the draft, but was considering the procedural aspect of whether to take up the draft or not at the current meeting.  The representative of Iraq, therefore, should conclude its statement.

The representative of France requested a brief suspension of the meeting to enable members to engage in consultation before the vote.

The representative of Algeria said that only one week ago, the General Assembly had waived the 24-hour rule in order to take a decision at the request of the same delegation now calling for the application of that rule.  The proposed amendment by the Egyptian delegation was balanced and met the expectations and wishes of many delegations, as it had accurately reflected the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.  He, therefore, supported the Egyptian proposal and requested that the Committee immediately embark on consideration of the text. .

The representative of Iran said that the positions on the text were rather clear and the first revision had been on the table since 26 October.  He had been cognizant of consultations aimed at producing a revised text which could be acceptable by more parties.  As the representative of Egypt had explained, those consultations had been based on the language of the Final Document.  The new revised paragraph again had reflected the NPT agreement.  Since the Committee was facing agreed language, there was no need for a delay.

The representative of Mexico, on a point of order, drew the Chairman’s attention to rule 118, which stated that during a discussion of any matter a representative may move to suspend a meeting, and that such motion shall not be debated, but shall immediately be put to a vote.  Rule 119 had reaffirmed that.  The representative of France had asked for a suspension.  He, therefore, objected to the ongoing debate.  The meeting should either be suspended or a vote should be taken to do so.  “Let’s stick to the rules; it’s late enough as it is”, he added.

The CHAIRMAN called the Committee’s attention to the lateness of the hour and informed that interpretation would be available only until 6:30 p.m.  He then suspended the meeting for five minutes.  

In a resumed meeting, the Chairman said he had asked the Secretariat to extend interpretation services for the duration of the meeting.  He proposed that rule 120, or the 24-hour rule, be waived and that the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East be considered.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A.C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2).

The representative of Iraq said that his country had reservations on the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East because all countries in the region, except the Zionist entity, were parties to the NPT. They had all signed safeguard arrangements with the IAEA, but those safeguards were not observed by the Zionist entity.  With the help of the United States, Israel was developing nuclear weapons.  That prevented universal adherence to the NPT.  That situation should have been referred to explicitly in the draft resolution.  Iraq did not join the Arab group in sponsoring the draft resolution. It would have suggested a separate vote on the sixth preambular paragraph of the draft and would have voted “no” on it.

The representative of the United States said that his country had opposed the draft resolution in the past.  The addition of a new paragraph referring to the outcome of the NPT Review Conference to this year’s draft did not improve it. The draft singled out one country in the Middle East region.

The representative of Israel said that the draft resolution was blatantly one-sided and had the potential to undermine nuclear non-proliferation.  Efforts were under way by some countries of the region to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  The draft neglected the real risk to nuclear disarmament in the region, which emanated from the States parties to the NPT in the region who were not complying with their Treaty obligations.  The draft resolution would not serve the greater objectives of nuclear non-proliferation in the region.  The draft resolution focused on one country, which had not failed in meeting its obligations.  The singling out of Israel in the draft resolution did not lend credibility to the First Committee.

The Secretary of the Committee said that Afghanistan had joined as a sponsor of the draft resolution.

The Committee first voted on the sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution, which reads:  “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 internationally 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.”

The paragraph was approved by a vote of 138 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Marshal Islands, Pakistan, Tonga) (see Annex VIII).

The Committee then adopted the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2), as a whole, by a vote of 139 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 7 abstentions (Australia, Canada, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago) (see Annex IX).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of India said that his country had abstained from the vote on the draft as a whole and had voted “no” on the sixth preambular paragraph.  India believed that the focus of the draft should be limited to the region it addressed.  The issues it raised had received widespread consideration in the international arena.

The representative of Tunisia said that his indicator had not operated properly during the voting.  His country would have voted in favour of the sixth preambular paragraph.

The representative of France, on behalf of European Union and associated States, said that they voted in favour of the draft, fully taking into account the new elements it incorporated.  The Union hoped that those elements would be implemented in all of its aspects.

The representative of Norway acknowledged the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Initiatives leading to nuclear disarmament in the Middle East would be helpful.  To be effective, such initiatives should include all weapons of mass destruction, and to achieve that goal it was important that no party be “singularized”.  Previous texts had not been balanced and had addressed selective parts of the issue.  This year, the draft included essential elements.  Norway wanted to encourage that approach and, as such, had voted in favour of the draft.

/…

Statements by Regional Groups

Representatives of the following regional groups expressed their appreciation for the work of the Committee and to the Bureau and the secretariat: Mauritania on behalf of the Group of African States; South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement; Slovenia on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States; Germany on behalf of the Group of Western European and Other States; France on behalf of the European Union; Kyrgyzstan on behalf of the Asian States; Brazil on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States; and Libya on behalf of the Arab States.

Other Remarks

The representative of Egypt thanked States for supporting the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and delegations that had shown flexibility in approving the text at today’s meeting.

The representative of the Gambia said that had he been present, he would have voted in favour of the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

The representative of Viet Nam, speaking on behalf of the member States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), also expressed his appreciation for the work of the Committee.

The representative of France said he had wrongly named Norway as associated with the statement made on behalf of the European Union.

/…

ANNEX III

Vote on Fifth Preambular Paragraph of Transparency in Armaments

The fifth preambular paragraph in the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 134 in favour to 2 against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

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, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, 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, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Egypt, Syria.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Operative Paragraph 2 of Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 3 against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

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, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, 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, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Egypt, Lebanon, Syria.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

ANNEX V

Vote on Operative Paragraph 5(B) of Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 5(b) of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 135 in favour to 3 against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

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, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, 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, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Egypt, Lebanon, Syria.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 7 of Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 16 abstentions, as follows:

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, Federated States of Micronesia, 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, 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, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Burkina Faso, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments

The draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/55/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with

17 abstentions, as follows:

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, Federated States of Micronesia, 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, 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, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 6 of Middle East Nuclear Proliferation

Preambular paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 2 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

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, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, 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, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  India, Israel.

Abstain:  Bhutan, Cuba, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Tonga.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United States, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Middle East Nuclear Proliferation

The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/55/L.29/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 3 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

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, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, 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, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Canada, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *