Disarmament Diplomacy

Appendix: Summary of Resolutions

Voting is given as for:against:abstentions

'' is used when a resolution is adopted without a vote. Some countries state that they have not participated in the consensus. The First Committee votes are shown first, followed by the votes in the UN General Assembly on 20 November, 2000. Comments following the votes refer to debate in the First Committee only. The resolutions have been grouped according to subject, resembling but not corresponding exactly to the clusters used by the UN. Occasionally, representatives informed the Committee that they had been absent or that their votes had been wrongly recorded. Numbers given here are from the immediate official records. A '*' on some resolutions is part of the identifying First Committee number. '' denotes an agreed revision incorporated before action was taken. Where possible we identify the introducing country, which has normally taken the lead in negotiating with others on the text, but we have not necessarily mentioned all co-sponsors, statements, or voting preferences. The aim of the appendix is to highlight resolutions and statements of political significance.

Some resolutions were taken in parts. In this case, PP refers to preambular paragraph and OP refers to operative paragraph. The preambular paragraphs normally provide background and context while the operative paragraphs contain requests or instructions. A few votes may switch sides between the First Committee and General Assembly, but the main reason why numbers are higher in the UN GA votes is because a few delegations (usually from non-aligned states) are not able to attend the First Committee. Countries that are in serious arrears with their payments to the UN are recorded as absent, whether or not they voted, which explains why the co-sponsors of some resolutions are not able to record their votes in favour. There may also be discrepancies in voting figures due to requests by delegations for their votes to be recorded after missing or making mistakes during the electronic voting procedure.

The full list of co-sponsors, text of resolutions, summary of statements, and voting details can be obtained from the UN press releases at its website at: http://www.un.org/News.

Nuclear Arms Control and Disarmament

Introduced by Iran

The resolution was first introduced in the First Committee last year. It is aimed at accomplishing a "comprehensive approach towards missiles at the global and regional levels" and asks the Secretary-General to seek member states' views on "the issue of missiles in all its aspects". This year, the resolution also requests the United Nations to establish a panel of governmental experts to prepare a report on the issue for the fifty-seventh session of the UNGA (2002).

First Committee, October 31: 90-0-60

UNGA: 97-0-65

First Committee comments: Most NAM countries and China supported the resolution and NATO, EU and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) countries (except for Russia and South Africa) abstained.

China spoke in favour of a universal and non-discriminatory arrangement, arguing that ' cartels' could not adequately address the question in the long term. It believed the resolution took a constructive approach in the right direction. Egypt hoped that the resolution would initiate a non-discriminatory dialogue on the issue and stressed that missiles needed to be considered in the context of WMD. Pakistan called the initiative "very important" but said it should have spelled out that the cause of "the central security problem posed by missiles" was the fact that certain countries had equipped thousands of missiles with nuclear warheads.

At the other end was the United States who believed that it was "unnecessary and counterproductive" to bring the issue to the UN, believing that the expert' group might do more harm than good. It believed that missile proliferation was best dealt with regionally. Some others did not oppose the expert group but expressed some reservations about the resolution and what exactly it was intended to do. Japan felt it did not adequately address concerns about missile proliferation. Australia said it was difficult to support the draft because it dealt with the issue of missiles ' all its aspects', whereas Australia believed that the experts group should concentrate on ballistic missiles. France, speaking on behalf of the EU and associated countries, who all abstained, said the resolution was too "vague". Agreeing that there was a need to step up efforts in this area, France said the MTCR' draft code of conduct had a role to play in this respect. Unmistakeably referring to the Democratic People' Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the North, South Korea considered that missile tests "in some regions" had shown that ballistic missile proliferation had to be addressed urgently. Arguing that the draft failed to take into account the efforts already made at bilateral and multilateral levels, South Korea advocated a step-by-step process.

UNGA 55/33B (L.2/Rev.1)
Preservation and Compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems

Introduced by Russia and co-sponsored by Belarus and China

This resolution, first introduced last year, aims to rally international support for the ABM treaty and to prevent the United States from weakening, amending or abrogating the treaty in order to deploy a national missile defence system. It calls for continued and renewed efforts to "strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and to preserve its integrity and validity" through full and strict compliance. It also reiterates that the parties must refrain from having ABM systems to defend their territory and from transferring such systems or their components to other countries. The resolution recognises that the international community has "the strongest interest" in ensuring the treaty' integrity and safeguarding its inviolability as "the implementation of any measure undermining... the Treaty also undermines global strategic stability and world peace and the promotion of further strategic nuclear arms reductions". The resolution also urges all countries to "support efforts aimed at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery". At France' insistence, the resolution this year includes a new operative paragraph 7 welcoming as a "positive step" the United States' decision "not to authorize deployment of a national missile defence at this time".

First Committee, November 1: 78-3-65

UNGA: 88-5-66

First Committee comments: The resolution gained more support this year, having more votes in favour than abstentions (as opposed to last year when abstentions in the First Committee outnumbered the votes in favour). The EU and NATO countries abstained, except for France and Ireland, who voted in favour. Only the United States, Israel and Micronesia voted against. Latvia moved from last year' against-vote to an abstention. In the UNGA, Albania and Honduras also voted against.

Commenting on France' new paragraph (OP7) welcoming President Clinton' postponement decision, the US representative argued that it made the resolution worse because it "failed to take into account how the President' decision has changed the landscape on ABM issues". Nor did it "remedy the basic flaws" that caused the United States to oppose the initiative from the beginning, namely that the resolution resists amendments to the treaty, which was "peculiar" since the treaty itself allowed for amendments. The US further complained that the resolution makes the UN take sides in an ongoing discussion between the United States and Russia and, seeking to make judgments on substantive issues, would only hinder the discussions.

This argument was put forward by a number of states explaining their decisions to abstain. For example, Germany, on behalf of some thirty European countries and Canada, argued for a consensus resolution saying that the issue should have the support of both parties. Sweden agreed but did "not share the overriding need for strategic stability". Echoing arguments made during the 2000 NPT Review Conference, Sweden argued that the concept of strategic stability was linked to Cold War thinking and should not be the basis for disarmament today. Several other abstainers also stressed the treaty' importance, including Nigeria, New Zealand, Peru and the Philippines, who also welcomed the postponement decision. New Zealand was joined by others when it cautioned against any acts that might have adverse effects on disarmament and emphasised that the most powerful nations had a "duty to exercise care". Pakistan believed that the deployment of national missile defences would invite increased missile production and could, if deployed in certain regions, have destabilising effects. Syria opposed the references to missile proliferation saying that they detracted from the resolution' main objective.

UNGA 55/33C (L.4/Rev.1*)
Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: The Need for A New Agenda

Introduced by Sweden on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition and over 60 (mainly NAM) countries

The resolution, tabled for the third successive year, was redrafted to take into consideration the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, in which the New Agenda positions had played such a significant role. The preambular paragraphs express concern over the continued risk that nuclear weapons could be used, that nuclear arms reductions are not actively under way, and noting that despite some progress, thousands of nuclear weapons still exist in the arsenals. The resolution recalls the ICJ advisory opinion and UN Millennium Declaration and welcomes the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, underlining the need for action. It underlines "the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament".

In fulfillment of the 1995 NPT review conference' stated determination to pursue systematic and progressive efforts to implement article VI of the NPT, the resolution reproduces the thirteen major practical steps agreed at the 2000 review conference: the importance and urgency to have the CTBT' early entry into force; moratorium on nuclear tests pending that; the necessity of fissile material production ban negotiations in the CD and their conclusion within five years; the necessity of a nuclear disarmament subsidiary body in the CD; irreversibility in nuclear disarmament; early entry in force of START II and conclusion of START III as soon as possible; the completion and implementation of the Trilateral Initiative; steps by all NWS leading to nuclear disarmament, including further efforts by them to reduce their nuclear arsenals, increase transparency, further reduce non-strategic weapons, reduce the operational status of their nuclear weapon, diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies, and the engagement of all NWS in the nuclear disarmament process as soon as appropriate; arrangements by all NWS to place excess fissile material under safeguards; the ultimate objective of general and complete disarmament; reports on the implementation of Article VI of the NPT; further development of verification capabilities. The resolution calls the non-Parties to accede to the NPT and abjures those countries who have not done so to conclude full-scope safeguards agreements with the IAEA. Furthermore, it calls for effective physical protection of nuclear material, legally binding security assurance to NPT-Parties, the establishment of NWFZ and affirms the ultimate need for a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument or framework in order to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world.

First Committee, November 1: There were separate paragraph votes on PP15 (welcoming the final document of the 2000 NPT review conference) and OP16 (calling for recommendations on security assurances to be made to the 2005 NPT review conference) -

PP15: 151-3-1

OP16: 151-0-4

Whole resolution: 146-3-8

UNGA whole resolution: 154-3-8

PP15: 160-3-1

OP16: 161-0-4

First Committee comments: India, Israel and Pakistan voted against PP15 and Cuba abstained. All four countries abstained on OP16. Britain, China and (in an eleventh hour decision at the First Committee) the United States voted for the resolution, whereas France and Russia abstained. Other abstainers included Bhutan and Mauritius (close allies of India), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (Russia' former Soviet allies), and Monaco, a French satellite. All the NATO non-nuclear-weapon states which had abstained in previous years voted in favour. India, Israel and Pakistan voted against the whole resolution, but Cuba voted in favour. In the UNGA, Kazakhstan changed from voing against to voting in favour, but Tajikistan voted against.

Britain said it was pleased to have been able to vote for the resolution and thanked the New Agenda sponsors for their constructive spirit. Britain considered it particularly important that the resolution faithfully reflected both the letter and spirit of what had been agreed at the NPT Review Conference because it believed that this year' General Assembly should support that outcome strongly and unambiguously. Stressing Britain' unequivocal commitment to the global elimination of nuclear weapons, Ambassador Ian Soutar listed a number of unilateral measures already taken and identified that Britain' immediate priorities for further action included further nuclear arms reductions by the United States and Russia, the entry-into-force of the CTBT, and FMCT negotiations. Britain believed that the achievement of the global elimination of nuclear weapons required the UK and others to do more but cautioned that nuclear disarmament could not be carried out in a vacuum. Creating the right conditions would require action from all states: this included further progress on conventional armaments, and in the chemical and biological field as well as nuclear. Britain stressed the importance of developing robust and credible verification.

China said it had voted in favour because the text drew extensively on the outcome of the NPT Review Conference, but considered that it would have been improved if it had taken a more explicit stand on the ABM Treaty and stated that the countries with the largest arsenals should take the lead in nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, China argued that transparency (with which it had had considerable difficulty during the NPT conference) should be linked to the security of the country concerned. The draft should also have called on the NWS to undertake no-first-use policies and not to use nuclear weapons against NNWS and NWFZ.

Noting that its decision had not been easy, the United States was pleased that the co-sponsors had this year presented a draft that the US could support. The Final Document of the Review Conference was "the guiding light" and the United States had reviewed the resolution against it. The United States called it wise that the resolution focussed on the agenda of the 1995 Conference and was supplemented by the decisions at the 2000 Conference, saying that the nuclear disarmament process required pragmatic proposals and not political calls for ' goals' The US raised concerns, however, that OP18, referring to the need for a negotiated legally binding instrument or framework to underpin a nuclear weapon free world was ' and ambiguous' and said it should not be construed as in any way limiting the ways and means available to pursue the shared objectives: the process would continue to require additional treaties and agreements as well as unilateral initiatives. The United States believed that the FMCT was the next logical step on this path. Having sought (on behalf of Israel) and failed to have the New Agenda states change the language of PP4 which noted that three states continue to operate unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, have not acceded to the NPT and raised concerns at "the continued retention of the nuclear weapons option by those three states", the US in the end did not let this prevent its positive vote but registered its regret at the sponsors' choice of wording in PP4, claiming that it was inconsistent with the Final Document.

Russia said it recognised the efforts of the co-sponsors but questioned the title of the resolution and said that there were some discrepancies as to the conditions under which nuclear disarmament could take place, in particular with respect to strategic stability. Russia stressed that the major objective was to implement all decisions made at the NPT Review Conference and justified its abstention on grounds that the emphasis in the draft was not to its satisfaction. However, it was understood that Russia had not negotiated with the New Agenda sponsors over the text and had offered to vote in favour if all the New Agenda states would back its ABM resolution. Consequently, when New Zealand and Sweden abstained on the ABM resolution, Russia abstained on the New Agenda resolution.

France compared the draft to the earlier one and also complained about the title and some outstanding difficulties. Emphasizing that there was no ambiguity about its commitment to nuclear disarmament, France said the text did not reflect the required balance: the reference to the unequivocal commitment by the NWS was taken out of context and the reference to general and complete disarmament was not present in the draft. Therefore, despite negotiations with the sponsors, France abstained because it was not satisfied that the text fully represented the outcome of the 2000 NPT Conference.

Cuba' representative explained his reservation about PP15, saying that Cuba' position with regard to the NPT and the outcome of the recent Review Conference was well known. Cuba abstained on OP16 because it believed that security assurances for NNWS had to be universal, unconditional and non-discriminatory. It was unacceptable that they be granted only to NPT states. Despite Cuba' reservations about some of the paragraphs, however, it had decided to support the draft as a whole because it ' merit' and could contribute towards the promotion of nuclear disarmament as a whole. In particular, the text put forth the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free world and laid out steps towards achieving this goal. With that in mind, Cuba voted in favour in the hope that the ' intentions would become reality'

India said the final document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to nuclear disarmament remained the only consensus document on disarmament for the international community as a whole. This 1978 programme of action was only partially implemented, so any future agenda should take it as the starting point. India questioned whether there was a need for a new agenda at all since there had been little progress on the most important element - nuclear disarmament. India rejected PP4, PP5, OP13, OP14 and OP17, which referred to the non-NPT states or regional NWFZ, calling them ', fictional and completely divorced from reality' India was a nuclear-weapon state and that reality could not be denied. India criticised the drafters for having deleted the references (in earlier New Agenda resolutions) to de-alerting, arguing that this had been done appease the NWS. Furthermore, the text was silent on the sources of nuclear proliferation, which the NPT had failed to stem. India said that any new agenda could not succeed in the old framework of the NPT. Furthermore, the resolution should have included NAM proposals and called the use of nuclear weapons a crime against humanity, as the ICJ had done.

Pakistan referred to an earlier statement in which it spelled out that it could not support any drafts that welcomed the outcome of the NPT Review Conference or incorporated any elements from it. Ambassador Munir Akram criticised PP5, which states that the May 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan did not alter their status in any way, saying that the paragraph had the contradictory effect of implying that certain states had a certain status to possess nuclear weapons. He said that Pakistan had never asked for any special status and that it strongly opposed the "unrealistic" demands of OP13, which calls on the non-NPT parties to accede to the Treaty and to reverse any nuclear weapon development and deployment policies.

UNGA 55/33D (L.7)
2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation Treaty of Nuclear Weapons

Introduced by Algeria

A short procedural resolution welcoming the adoption of the Final Document of the NPT Review Conference (May 19, 2000) by consensus, in particular the documents entitled "Review of the operation of the Treaty, taking into account the decisions and the resolution adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference" and "Improving the effectiveness of the strengthened review process for the Treaty".

First Committee, October 25: 142-1-3

UNGA: 163-1-3

First Committee comments: As expected, the resolution received overwhelming support except for four countries: India was alone in voting against the resolution with the three other non-NPT countries (Cuba, Israel and Pakistan) abstaining.

India said its position on the NPT was well known: it felt the treaty was discriminatory, inadequate and ineffective, with article VI yet to be implemented. Borrowing language from the final document of the Review Conference, it "unequivocally" rejected the references made to India in that document. Furthermore, it argued that the "euphoria" following the Review Conference had proved "short-lived and hollow" with no practical progress in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. India did ' want to be a part of this' and therefore cast a negative vote. Pakistan referred to an earlier statement (October 23) in which it criticised the NPT Review Conference and argued that if "some other states" had been present at the Conference, the nature of the consensus might have been different. Hence it could not welcome the outcome of the Conference. Cuba said that the fact that it had participated in the Conference as an observer showed the seriousness it attaches to nuclear disarmament. However, given that it viewed the NPT as discriminatory and given the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament under the treaty, Cuba could not support the resolution.

Canada spoke for many in praising Ambassador Abdallah Baali, who chaired the NPT Review Conference, and urging the four non-NPT parties to recognise the results of the Conference as ' served their interests as well' Nepal, close neighbour to India and Pakistan, said that the NPT outcome deserved to be welcomed and hoped to see some action soon on its implementation.

UNGA 55/33R (L.39/Rev.1)
A Path to the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

Introduced by Japan and co-sponsored by Australia

Since 1994, Japan had put forward a resolution based on the NPT, but this year, in view of the link being made between the New Agenda and the NPT outcome, Japan instead introduced a differently drafted and titled resolution, drawing heavily from the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The major difference from the New Agenda resolution is the inclusion of target dates for CTBT entry into force and the conclusion of the fissile material treaty, and the call for a moratorium on fissile material production which Japan and others had fought unsuccessfully for at the NPT. The resolution also calls for efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMD and their delivery vehicles by confirming and strengthening transfer policies. (In May 2000, most references to export controls were arbitrarily deleted from the NPT final document in endgame tussles after the review conference ran over time while resolving the text on Iraq. Japan and many others aquiesced in the deletions at the time, but without accepting that the omission of text on controls and transfers represented any decision or change by NPT parties.)

The resolution reaffirms the importance of the NPT' universality, calling on the non-NPT Parties to accede, and underlines the importance that all states parties fulfil their treaty obligations. It identifies the following practical steps for the implementation of Article VI of the NPT: (a) early signature and ratification of the CTBT, with the target date of 2003 for entry into force; (b) immediate commencement in the CD of negotiations on a fissile material productions ban aiming at conclusion in 2005, and pending entry into force, a production moratorium; (c) the establishment of a nuclear disarmament subsidiary body in the CD; (d) the application of the principle of irreversibility to nuclear disarmament; (e) the entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible, while preserving the ABM Treaty as the cornerstone of strategic stability and the basis for further reductions; and (f) six specified steps by all NWS leading to nuclear disarmament as outlined in the NPT agreements. The resolution recognises that the realisation of a nuclear-weapon-free world requires going beyond START III and deeper reductions by all the NWS and invites them to keep the UN informed of their progress. It welcomes the ongoing dismantlement efforts, calling on the NWS to place excess fissile material under verification, and stresses the need to further develop verification capabilities. It stresses the importance of the IAEA Model Protocol, encouraging all states to conclude the additional protocol, and welcomes the adoption of IAEA resolution (GC(44)/RES/19) on safeguards agreements. Furthermore, the resolution calls for efforts to prevent WMD from falling into the hands of non-state actors.

First Committee, November 1: A separate vote was taken on OP8, which calls on states to confirm and strengthen their transfer policies on dual-use equipment, materials or technology -

OP8: 137-2-11

Whole resolution: 144-1-12

UNGA whole resolution: 155-1-12

OP8: 150-2-10

First Committee comments: Despite some controversy in the early stages, the resolution received broad support from EU and NATO states and the majority of the NAM. Only two of the NWS, Britain and the United States, voted in favour. Twelve countries abstained, including China, France and Russia, as well as Cuba, Egypt, North Korea and Pakistan. India voted against. Arguing that OP8 was discriminatory, Pakistan and Egypt voted against the paragraph, with another ten NAM countries abstaining.

It appeared that China' principal objection was the "artificial deadline" of 2005 for the fissban negotiations regarding the target date as "unreasonable and unrealistic". China also criticised Japan' resolution for failing to mention that the countries with the biggest arsenals had a special responsibility to engage in disarmament and to abandon deterrence strategies and said it did not agree with the resolution' "Tokyo report formulations". Arguing that any resolution on nuclear disarmament must faithfully reflect the balances achieved at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, France objected to the Japanese resolution on grounds similar to its criticisms of the New Agenda resolution, accusing it of only partially reflecting the NPT agreements, particularly with regard to its treatment of the "unequivocal undertaking" by the NWS to eliminate their nuclear arsenals and the lack of explicit reference to general and complete disarmament in OP3. Claiming that one part could not be considered more important than any other part, Russia also considered that the sponsors had cited selectively from the Final Document, and had therefore violated the fragile balance of interest. By contrast, Britain and the United States backed the resolution, which Britain said reflected in essence the letter and spirit of what was agreed in New York in May.

Egypt opposed OP8 saying that it did not take into account the comprehensive nature of transfers of dual-use goods and technology but dealt with the matter in a way that consolidated discriminatory treatment. Because OP8 was carried, Egypt therefore abstained on the whole resolution. Pakistan said it was totally against OP8, and abstained on the whole resolution. Pakistan also stressed that, as a non-NPT party, it did not construe itself to be under the OP3 provision regarding the negotiations and moratorium on fissile material production. Indonesia abstained because it considered that security concerns could not be dealt with by denying technology transfers. Though unhappy with OP8, which it regarded as "ambiguous", Algeria considered the main draft to be useful and important. Iran appreciated Japan' efforts to come up with a more "streamlined" resolution with effective measures from the Final Document that strengthened the resolution this year, but considered that OP8 did not reflect the "balance" reached during the NPT Review Conference discussions.

UNGA 55/33T (L.41)
Nuclear Disarmament

Introduced by Myanmar (Burma) with co-sponsorship from over 40 NAM states

This resolution, generally regarded as the NAM disarmament resolution, has this year incurred India' wrath. In a departure from past practice, it refers to the NPT, welcoming the positive outcome of the 2000 Review Conference and borrowing wording from the Final Document. It repeats calls for a phased programme of nuclear disarmament but refers to past calls for timebound nuclear disarmament only in the preamble. The resolution carries forward the call for an international conference on nuclear disarmament, but in other respects it has moved closer to the middle ground.

The resolution recognises that "in view of recent political developments, the time is now opportune" for all NWS to undertake effective measures with a view to the elimination of nuclear weapons and to diminish their role in security policies in order to minimise the risk that they be used. The resolution urges the NWS to immediately stop the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems and, as an interim measure, to de-alert and de-activate them and to take other concrete measures to reduce their operational status, calling the NWS reduce the nuclear threat step-by-step. It calls on the NWS to agree a legally binding instrument on a joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and calls upon all states to conclude an internationally and legally binding treaty on negative security assurances. The resolution also urges the NWS to begin plurilateral negotiations "at an appropriate stage" on further deep reductions and underscores the principle of irreversibility in nuclear disarmament. The resolution calls for the immediate commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material with a view to their conclusion within five years, the conclusion of a legal instrument or instruments on NSA, the early entry into force of the CTBT and its strict observance. It regrets that the CD was unable to set up an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament and calls it to establish one to "deal with" nuclear disarmament and to commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament leading to their eventual elimination.

First Committee, October 30: A separate vote was taken on OP9, which welcomes the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, calling for its full and effective implementation, and also states that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only guarantee against their use or threat of use -

OP9: 139-2-16

Whole resolution: 99-39-17

UNGA whole resolution: 109-39-20

OP9: 150-2-15

First Committee comments: India and Israel voted against OP9 which welcomes the positive outcome of the Review Conference, and Cuba and Pakistan abstained. Others who abstained on this paragraph included four NWS, Britain, France, Russia, and the US, as well as Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine. As a whole, the resolution received the support of most NAM (India, Pakistan abstained) and China, and was opposed by most EU (Ireland and Sweden abstained) and NATO countries, and those wishing to join NATO. Argentina, Cyprus, Japan, South Korea abstained.

Chile cast its vote in favour saying that it forcefully rejected policies that kept up the threat of nuclear weapons and said it was incomprehensible that greater progress had not been achieved in nuclear disarmament. China voted in favour, saying that it believed in the purposes and principles of the resolution and shared much common ground with the NAM on nuclear disarmament. Again, China drew attention to the ABM Treaty, argued that states with the largest nuclear arsenals should lead the way and said that transparency should be based on the larger international environment and not jeopardise the safety and security of countries concerned.

Pakistan said it co-sponsored the resolution up until the 53rd UNGA but this year changed its vote to an abstention because it saw some "further weakening" of the resolution, including the omission of "important proposals" such as the programme of action for disarmament put forward by 26 non-aligned countries in the CD (August 1996). Pakistan also rejected OP9 which welcomed the outcome of the NPT Review Conference. India, which abstained, was ' by the turn the text had taken' saying that the resolution diluted a number of traditional and long-held NAM and Group of 21 positions. India voted against OP9 based on its known views on the NPT.

In contrast, referring to its first ever positive mention of the NPT, Japan said the resolution had improved somewhat last year and was even further improved this year. Despite this, Japan abstained because of the reference to an agreed time frame for nuclear disarmament in PP5. Furthermore, it had difficulty with regard to the references to an international conference on nuclear dangers and SSOD IV as they were still under discussion in the UN. New Zealand, voting in favour, said that the inclusion of the ICJ advisory opinion and the NPT draft showed that the draft had continued to evolve positively. New Zealand considered that the references to the CD were too prescriptive given current realities, and emphasised that since the NPT Final Document had made a clear call for nuclear disarmament, New Zealand did not consider itself bound by past initiatives mentioned in the preamble.

UNGA 55/41 (L.37)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Introduced by Australia with over 70 countries from different groups

Calls on all states that have not signed and ratified the CTBT to do so and to refrain from acts that would defeat its object in the meanwhile. The resolution urges states to maintain their moratoria on nuclear tests and explosions pending the treaty' entry into force. Using agreed 2000 NPT review conference language, the resolution stresses that it is important that countries urgently sign and ratify the treaty "without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes". It urges all to continue to address CTBT issues at the highest level and particularly requests those states whose ratification is required for the entry into force to accelerate their ratification processes.

First Committee, October 30: 149-0-7

UNGA: 161-0-6

First Committee comments: Bhutan, India, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius, Syria and Tanzania abstained on the resolution. (Lebanon was absent for the UNGA vote.)

Syria argued that the CTBT disregarded the NNWS' right to security from nuclear attack and complained that the CTBT did not prohibit nuclear weapon use or qualitative development and failed to commit the NWS to eliminate their nuclear weapons within a specific frame of time. Syria raised concerns that the verification provisions could be abused for political purposes. Israel, which voted in favour, said it had played an active role in the CTBT negotiations and in developing the verification regime, but expressed reservations with regard to OP1, which had echoed the NPT agreements. Israel argued that that the CTBT should be governed exclusively by its policymaking organs. Pakistan, which also supported the resolution, said it considered the CTBT "a good treaty" and that, as recently stated by the foreign minister, it would be in Pakistan' interest to sign the treaty. Resenting the sanctions imposed against it after it tested in May 1998, Pakistan said it could sign the treaty if the coercive atmosphere were removed. Commenting on OP3, which called for a moratorium on testing, Pakistan stressed that it had not been the first to test and would not to be the first to resume testing either. It intended to maintain its unilaterally declared moratorium on testing until the CTBT entered into force, unless there would be some "extraordinary" developments in the region, understood to mean further Indian tests.

UNGA 55/33N (L.32/Rev/1)
Reducing Nuclear Danger

Introduced by India

The third year for this resolution, which warns against nuclear weapons being left on hair-trigger alert and emphasises that until nuclear weapons cease to exist, the NWS must assure NNWS against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The resolution calls for a review of nuclear doctrines and urgent steps to reduce risks of unintentional or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons by the five NWS. Measures are also called for to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation and to promote nuclear disarmament. Takes note of the UN Disarmament Advisory Board' report and welcomes the call made in the Millennium Declaration for an international conference on nuclear dangers.

First Committee, October 30: 102-42-14

UNGA: 110-45-14

First Committee comments: Although there was considerable initial scepticism about India' motives for sponsoring this resolution after conducting its nuclear tests in 1998, it now enjoys substantial support, particularly from the NAM states. Opposition is primarily from NATO and states wishing to join NATO.

China, which abstained, was the only NWS not to oppose the resolution. The United States called the resolution unrealistic and said that it failed to take notice of the real disarmament progress made both unilaterally and bilaterally. Ambassador Robert Grey objected that the resolution "failed to mention the NPT Review Conference as if it had never happened" when it did indeed happen and actually contributed towards reducing nuclear dangers. On the resolution' reference to the Secretary-General' proposal for an international conference on nuclear dangers, the United States said that it continued to believe that now was not the time for such a conference and that if it was necessary to have a conference, countries should focus on having a fourth UN special session on disarmament (although the US had been one of the principal opponents of past resolutions calling for SSOD IV).

UNGA 55/33X (L.48)
Follow-Up to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Introduced by Malaysia

Underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that there exists an obligation to pursue and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament and calls on all states to immediately fulfil that obligation by starting multilateral negotiations in 2001 leading to the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. It also requests states to report back to the UN on the efforts and measures they have taken on the implementation of the resolution and nuclear disarmament.

First Committee, October 30: A separate vote was taken on OP1, which underlined the unanimous ICJ conclusion regarding the legal obligation to negotiate and bring to conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament -

OP1: 150-4-1

Whole resolution: 109-27-21

UNGA whole resolution: 119-28-22

OP1: 162-4-1

First Committee comments: France, Israel, Russia and the United States voted against OP1, while Britain abstained. As a whole, the resolution was supported by most of NAM and China, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan and Sweden. The other four NWS voted against as did most NATO countries, and those wishing to join NATO. Abstainers included Australia, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, and South Korea.

Stressing that the ICJ opinion was only advisory and not legally binding, the United States said the resolution used the ICJ conclusion as a justification for a nuclear weapon convention, which it could not support. Furthermore, the US stressed that it took its nuclear disarmament obligations seriously and that in its view, the ICJ opinion did not alter its obligations under Article VI of the NPT in any way. Japan abstained, saying that while it supported the ICJ advisory opinion, the resolution demonstrated the complexity of the topic. Referring to the resolution' call for a nuclear weapon convention, Japan believed in taking practical steps before "jumping to conclusions". Arguing for a gradual nuclear disarmament process, Luxembourg justified the opposition of the Benelux countries by emphasising that the focus should now be on the implementation of the steps agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. North Korea backed the ICJ advisory opinion and said that the elimination of nuclear weapons was a top priority. Chile, which voted in favour, said the ICJ opinion constituted an unquestionable reference.

UNGA 55/33Y (L.49/Rev.1)
The Conference on Disarmament decision (CD/1547) of 11 August 1998 to establish, under agenda 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

Introduced by Canada

Utilises the minimal language agreed at the NPT review conference to show support for negotiations to begin on a fissile materials production ban as contained in the Shannon mandate of March 1995, but drops the target date of conclusion within five years. The resolution urges the CD to "agree on a programme of work that includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty".

First Committee, November 1: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Many states would have preferred stronger language calling for fissban negotiations, but it became clear that for China to feel able to join consensus the resolution would have to reproduce the language from the NPT Final Document, linking fissban negotiations to a CD programme of work. Pakistan - which successfully fought against inclusion of the NPT target date - agreed in the end to join the consensus and said it would seek to resolve the question of stocks during the negotiations. On the other side, Japan criticised the resolution for not reflecting the urgency of the issue and falling short of the NPT agreement by not including the timeframe. Israel made reference to the statement made by its Foreign Minister in August 1998 and stressed that the negotiations could not be addressed in isolation, but would need to take into account the peace process and arms limitation in the Middle East.

UNGA 55/34G (L.30)
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Introduced by India

India' recurring resolution argues that the use of nuclear weapons poses the most serious threat to mankind and calls for a multilateral, universal and binding agreement prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, as a step towards a phased programme towards their total elimination in a specified framework of time. It refers to the ICJ advisory opinion, the final document of SSOD I (1978) and requests the CD to commence negotiations on an international convention prohibiting nuclear weapon use.

First Committee, October 30: 101-42-14

UNGA: 109-43-16

First Committee comments: In general the NAM states voted in favour and NATO states against. Pakistan, which voted for the resolution, referred to PP2 (on the ICJ advisory opinion) and a recent statement made by the Pakistani foreign minister who said "the use of nuclear weapons is inconceivable". Though agreeing that nuclear weapons should never be used again, Japan abstained because it believed in a step-by-step disarmament process rather than a timetable. The United States voted against because the resolution calls for negotiations for a nuclear weapon convention. It said it would not negotiate or sign such a convention but instead believed in a step-by-step approach on nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, in light of the results achieved at the NPT Review Conference, the US considered that the need for such a resolution had been further diminished.

UNGA 55/31 (L.36)
Conclusion of Effective International Arrangements to Assure Non-Nuclear-Weapon States Against the Use or Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons

Introduced by Pakistan

Another perennial resolution, this lists various decisions, resolutions and statements on negative security assurances (NSA), considers that until nuclear disarmament is achieved, it is necessary that the international community develop effective measures so that non-nuclear-weapons states are ensured against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The resolution notes the proposals in the Conference on Disarmament on the topic and that "there is no objection, in principle, to the idea of an international convention" on NSA although there are "difficulties with regard to a common approach". It recommends further intensive efforts to find a common approach, especially by the NWS, and that the CD continue negotiations with a view to an early agreement.

First Committee, October 25: 97-0-50

UNGA: 111-0-54

First Committee comments: The NAM and China voted in favour and NATO/Russia and their various allies abstained. South Korea agreed with the need to have negative security assurances but abstained, since the resolution did not distinguish between NPT and non-NPT parties. Stressing the principle of mutual responsibilities by the NWS and NNWS, it argued that NPT parties in good standing with their treaty obligations had the right to expect them but questioned the resolution' premise for who should receive such assurances. Australia argued likewise, adding that NSA were an incentive for non-NPT parties to accede to the treaty. India, on the other hand, voted in favour because it felt that there was an obligation on the NWS' part to give these guarantees to all NNWS. India said it was ready, "as a nuclear-weapon-state", to enter into negotiations in the CD on a legally binding instrument on NSA and reiterated that it had a no-first-use policy in place and respected countries' choice to acquire security assurances through NWFZ.

Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones

Introduced by Mexico

Notes that the Tlatelolco Treaty is in force in 32 countries (Cuba has signed but not yet ratified) and the amended Treaty in 16 countries in the region. The resolution welcomes the consolidation steps taken and urges those countries which have not yet deposited the amendment' ratification instruments to do so as soon as possible.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/30 (L.16)
Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East

Introduced by Egypt

Urges concerned parties to seriously consider the required "practical and urgent steps" towards establishing a NWFZ in the Middle East and invites them to join the NPT. The resolution calls on all countries in the region to place their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards. Pending the zone' establishment, those countries are invited not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit their stationing on their territories. The resolution also notes the importance of the on-going bilateral Middle East peace negotiations.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Israel said it joined the consensus as it has done in the past twenty years but with some reservations. It stressed that the issue of a NWFZ in the Middle East should be dealt with in the context of the peace process and that the current political realities mandated a step-by-step process with confidence-building measures (CBM) as the first step. Furthermore, such a zone could be established only after consultations with all the countries in the region. It could not be established in a situation where countries had declared that they were in a state of war. Israel also said that, together with Egypt, it had this year attempted to come up with common language on the issue but that in the end, despite a "genuine effort" on Israel' part, the two countries had not been able to agree and so went with the old formulation instead.

UNGA 55/33I (L.19/Rev.1)
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere and Adjacent Areas

Introduced by Brazil on behalf of the countries within the Southern Hemisphere

Introduced for the fifth time, the resolution "welcomes the continued contribution the Antarctic Treaty and the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba are making towards freeing the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas...from nuclear weapons", and calls on their ratification by all states in the region. It also calls on concerned states to work together in order to facilitate adherence to their protocols. The resolution welcomes efforts towards concluding further NWFZ treaties and encourages countries to consider all relevant proposals to this end, including with respect to the Middle East and South Asia. Stresses NWFZ role in strengthening nuclear non-proliferation and extending the world' nuclear-weapon-free areas "with particular reference to the responsibilities of the [NWS]", calls all states to support the process of nuclear disarmament and to work toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and calls on the parties and signatories to the treaties to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation. This year, the resolution also welcomes their "vigorous efforts" and proposes that they hold an international conference in order to support their common goals.

First Committee, October 31: Separate votes were taken on the words ' South Asia' in OP3, and then on the whole paragraph OP3, which calls for the conclusion of new NWFZ treaties, and finally on the whole resolution -

OP3 vote on ' South Asia' 134-1-10

OP3 as a whole: 138-1-9

Whole resolution: 146-4-6

UNGA whole resolution: 159-4-5

OP3 vote on ' South Asia' 152-1-10

OP3 as a whole: 155-1-9

First Committee comments: India voted against the words ' South Asia' and then, having failed to get them deleted, voted against the whole paragraph, while Pakistan abstained. As a whole, the resolution received large support, but Britain, France, Monaco and the United States voted against. Andorra, India, Israel, Micronesia, Russia and Spain abstained.

On behalf also of France and the United States, Britain explained the three NWS' vote against, saying that the sponsors of the resolution had a "seeming desire to restrict maritime rights of free passage on the high seas", thereby undermining the norms set by the Law of the Sea Convention. Britain referred to a ministerial statement from one of the key sponsors of the resolution, saying that it had increased the three countries' concerns. (In the statement in question, made to the Conference on Disarmament on March 23, 2000, Matt Robson, New Zealand' Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, had asked the NWS to ' their weapons' at the equator before entering the southern hemisphere.) Britain also voiced N-3 opposition to the idea of an international conference and said it was not clear what it was meant to achieve and how it would relate to the relevant legal instruments and international norms. They said they ' the worst', and accused the sponsors of being "on an exploratory expedition that may well be unhelpful to our overall interests".

Spain, which has supported the resolution in the past, abstained this year due to OP6, which refers to the international conference. Spain considered there was no need to hold such a conference since the groundwork on the establishment of NWFZ had been laid. China said it was always in favour of efforts to establish new NWFZ because they were important for nuclear disarmament. Nepal agreed and said this is why it would support one also in South Asia. China further elaborated that such zones should not include areas of dispute, however, and stressed that it had voted for the resolution in the understanding that, in referring to applicable principles regarding the rights of passage, the resolution did not add any additional obligations.

UNGA 55/36 (L.29/Rev.2)
The Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East

Introduced by Egypt

Calls attention to Israel' nuclear weapon capabilities. This year, the resolution includes new paragraphs that draw from the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT, welcoming the efforts undertaken to achieve the treaty' universality. The resolution refers to the resolution and decisions adopted by NPT Parties in 1995 and welcomes the conclusions on the Middle East of the 2000 Review Conference. It reaffirms the importance that Israel accede to the NPT and that it place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards and calls upon Israel not to develop, produce, test or acquire nuclear weapons and to renounce their possession.

First Committee, November 1: There were separate votes on PP6 on the NPT Review Conference and the NPT' universality -

PP6: 138-2-5

Whole resolution: 139-3-7

UNGA whole resolution: 157-3-8

PP6: 158-2-5

First Committee comments: India and Israel voted against PP6 with the two other non-NPT Parties, Cuba and Pakistan, abstaining. As a whole, the resolution was opposed by Israel, Micronesia and the United States. Australia, Canada and India were amongst the abstainers.

The United States opposed the singling out of one country in the region and said the resolution was unbalanced and had borrowed selectively from the NPT Final Document. The US viewed the resolution as a step backwards and away from cooperative efforts, thus working against nuclear disarmament. Iraq distanced itself from other Arab supporters of the resolution by expressing strong reservations on the last part of PP6 (which underlines universal adherence to the NPT and strict compliance with it). Iraq argued that it was only "the Zionist entity" that had refused to accede to the NPT and to place its facilities under IAEA safeguards and that only US assistance to Israel' nuclear weapons programme and US protection from any international action against Israel stood in the way of the NPT' universality. Israel, for its part, called the resolution "blatantly one-sided and contentious". The resolution did not recognize that there were countries in the region that were trying to acquire WMD. Norway, which changed its vote to a yes from an abstention last year, acknowledged the threats nuclear weapons pose and believed that efforts leading to nuclear disarmament should include all WMD and that, in the process, no party should be singled out. France, speaking on behalf of the EU, said it had taken into account the new elements in the resolution, but stressed that the NPT Final Document had to be implemented in its entirety. India and Pakistan underlined that the resolution applied only to the Middle East.

UNGA 55/33S (L.40/Rev.1)
Mongolia' International Security and Nuclear-Weapon-Free Status

Introduced by Mongolia

The UNGA first welcomed Mongolia' decision to declare its territory a NWFZ in 1998 (53/77D). This resolution takes note of the Secretary-General' report on the resolution' implementation as well as the adoption of legislation defining and regulating its status by Mongolia' Parliament. It welcomes the joint statement by the five NWS (October 5, 2000) providing security assurances to Mongolia as a contribution to the implementation of resolution 53/77D, invites member states to continue to cooperate to consolidate and strengthen Mongolia' status, and appeals to the Asian and Pacific region states to support its efforts to join relevant regional security and economic arrangements.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: The United States gave a statement on October 5 on behalf of all five NWS announcing "their respective unilateral negative security assurances" to Mongolia. The NWS said that Mongolia' good NPT standing and its unique geographic status made this "appropriate" since it was unable to obtain security assurances that were normally provided under NWFZ treaties. They emphasized that Mongolia' situation did not pertain to any other state. Iran expressed support for the eradication of nuclear weapons and believed that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones was a step in that direction, as well as contributing to peace and stability in that region. Upon the resolution' adoption by consensus, the United States said it was pleased that it had been adopted and that it intended to cooperate in its implementation as it had done in the previous years and urged others to do so as well. India also welcomed the adoption of resolution by consensus as a signal of international readiness to cooperate in the enhancement of Mongolia' status. However, it pointed out that in order for security assurances to be credible, they needed to be unambiguous and legally binding.

UNGA 55/33W
(L.45/Rev.1*)Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia

Introduced by Uzbekistan

The resolution is based on the belief that the establishment of a NWFZ in Central Asia can enhance the security of the Central Asian countries and strengthen global and regional peace and security and recalls the Almaty Declaration (February 28, 1997) by the foreign ministers of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and the Communiqué of the Consultative Meeting of Experts of the Central Asian Countries (July 9-10, 1998) on the elaboration of acceptable ways and means of establishing the zone. The resolution notes with appreciation the support to the initiative by all states, welcomes the desire by the five states to finalise the work and the steps they have taken to that end, calling them to continue the dialogue on the issue. It also requests the Secretary-General to continue to provide assistance to the five states in the elaboration of a treaty.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: India said it joined the consensus and was pleased that the initiative was getting the support it deserved. Nepal stated that the zone' establishment would be an effective confidence-building measure in the region.

First Committee Resolution L.46/Rev.1
Regional Disarmament and Non-Proliferation

Introduced by Belarus

A less specific version of Belarus' earlier attempts at getting support for a Central and Eastern European NWFZ, this sought to welcome and supports steps taken towards concluding further NWFZ treaties, based on arrangements freely arrived, that strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime and contribute towards realising the objectives of nuclear disarmament. The resolution expresses the belief that the international community should continue to promote the establishment of new NWFZ in accordance with UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) guidelines, and in that spirit, "welcomes the efforts and proposals that have been advanced by states in various regions of the world".

First Committee, November 1: withdrawn

First Committee comments: Belarus gave a bitter speech explaining why it was withdrawing the resolution, questioning why the overall "feeling of real cooperation" in the First Committee this year had not extended to its resolution. Belarus' initial draft had sought to give recognition to its proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free space in Central and Eastern Europe, and was opposed particularly by the new NATO states. It became a more general and less confrontational draft as a result of consultations. Belarus said that the negotiations on the text had not been easy and that it had demonstrated a maximum spirit of compromise, taking into account all the comments from Central and Eastern European countries. It stressed that the draft contained only one reference to anything regional: the title. However, Belarus felt that some of the countries held the draft hostage to their political ambitions (taken to mean their aspirations to be part of NATO or the EU), calling them ' prejudiced' and ' of the cold war' Since consensus was not possible, Belarus withdrew the draft.

Other WMD

Introduced by Canada and Poland

Stresses the necessity of universal adherence to, full and effective implementation of and compliance with the CWC and appreciates the work of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and its role in verifying compliance and promoting the accomplishment of the CWC' objectives. The resolution urges all states to meet their obligations in full and on time and supports cooperation between the UN and the OPCW.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Egypt said that while it had not requested a vote, its agreement with consensus could only be taken as sympathy with the aim of the resolution. Egypt argued that there needed to be a total prohibition of all WMD in the Middle East. Egypt stressed that all states in the region, without exception, should participate in that prohibition, a comment aimed at drawing attention to Israel' nuclear programme. Israel said that when it signed the CWC it expected others in the region to follow suit and regretted that none of them had yet signed or ratified or expressed any desire to do so. Explaining its own lack of ratification so far, Israel referred to its geopolitical situation and said its security concerns had not diminished but increased. It said positive changes in the climate in the Middle East would be a major requirement in considering ratification of the CWC.

UNGA 55/33J (L.20)
Measures to Uphold the Authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of NAM

Calls for strict observance of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (Geneva Protocol). The resolution also notes with appreciation the withdrawal by one state party (Russia) of its reservation to the Protocol and calls on those who still maintain reservations to follow suit.

First Committee, October 25: 144-0-4

UNGA: 163-0-5

First Committee comments: Israel, Micronesia, South Korea and the United States abstained on the resolution. Israel and the US still maintain reservations to the Protocol. Iran argued that reservations to the Geneva Protocol had become obsolete given that the CWC and the BWC banned the use of chemical and biological weapons, even in the case of reciprocity, and welcomed the withdrawal of their reservations by Canada and Estonia.

UNGA 55/40 (L.42)
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons and on Their Destruction

Introduced by Hungary and co-sponsored by over 60 countries from different groups

Notes the number of BWC members, calls on the rest of the signatory states to ratify and non-members to become parties. Welcomes the information and exchange of data so far and the progress made in the protocol negotiations, calling on all states parties to accelerate the negotiations and to redouble their efforts in order to produce "a cost-effective and practical regime" and to seek early resolution on the outstanding issues in order to complete the protocol before the Fifth Review Conference, to be held from November 19 to December 7, 2001.

First Committee, October 31: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: France, speaking on behalf of the EU, said it fully supported the resolution because it attached great importance to strengthening the BWC. This depended on the conclusion of the negotiations in Geneva on a legally binding protocol establishing a verification and control regime. France urged all states parties to join in the efforts to conclude the negotiations so that the protocol could be adopted before the BWC' Fifth Review Conference, calling the conclusion a "landmark disarmament step", if achieved.

Outer Space

Introduced Sri Lanka and co-sponsored by a number of NAM countries as well as China and Russia

Recognises all countries' common interest in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes, irrespective of the degree of economic and scientific development. The resolution reaffirms the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space (PAROS), recognising that because the current regime on outer space does not guarantee this, it is necessary to consolidate and reinforce the regime. It emphasises the importance of strict compliance with existing arms control and disarmament agreements relevant to outer space and with the existing legal regime. The CD is viewed as having the "primary role" and is invited to establish an ad hoc committee on PAROS as early as possible. The resolution also calls on countries with major space capabilities to refrain from acts contrary to maintaining a peaceful outer space.

First Committee, October 30: 154-0-2

UNGA: 163-0-3

First Committee comments: Israel and the United States voted against in the First Committee, to be joined by Micronesia in the UNGA. France spoke on behalf of the EU and associated countries clarifying that its vote in favour should not be misunderstood with regard to the CD and emphasising that the EU' top priority was FMCT negotiations but that EU countries were ready to support a subsidiary body on PAROS in the CD, providing its mandate was approved by consensus.

Conventional Arms

Introduced by Japan

In part due to differences of opinion over how the increasingly important question of the growing proliferation, production and use of small arms and light weapons should best be addressed by the international community, the First Committee this year chose to seek consensus only on a procedural decision to convene the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in New York from July 9 to 20, 2001. The decision also sets the date and venue for the third Preparatory Commission (PrepCom): March 19-30 in New York.

First Committee, October 31: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: The decision to hold a UN Conference on Small Arms been taken at a previous General Assembly, but polite speeches at the 55th First Committee masked some very serious differences of opinion over the venue, chairing and modalities. Although the date and venue were finalised this time, the meeting failed to deal with the issue of who would chair the conference and the participatory role of civil society. France, speaking on behalf of the EU, regretted that the Swiss authorities had had to withdraw their offer to subsidise the participation of less-resourced delegations if the conference were held in Geneva, due to an "inability to reach agreement" with the UN Secretariat on the supplementary costs (associated with holding the Conference in Geneva rather than New York). Their concerns were shared by a number of non-EU countries, including Norway and South Africa. France went on to say that the EU was convinced that Geneva should remain the principal place for UN disarmament talks and that the EU hoped that the procedural issues would be quickly resolved because an international plan of action was now at stake.

UNGA 55/33F (L.11/Rev.2)
Assistance to States for Curbing Illicit Traffic in Small Arms and Collecting Them

Introduced by Mali and co-sponsored by some 30, mostly European and NAM countries, as well as Canada and Japan

Concerned about the proliferation, illicit circulation and traffic of small arms and light weapons in the Saharo-Sahelian subregion, the resolution encourages the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to curb the problem, encourages countries to set up national commissions against the proliferation and the international community to support them and the civil society to involve themselves through them. The resolution welcomes the West African Moratorium on the Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms and Light Weapons and supports the OAU' launch of an African approach. It also expresses full support for the convening of the 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

First Committee, November 1: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: With regard to PP8' reference to the OAU report on the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, Egypt noted that a number of African states had expressed reservations to that report and that, therefore, consensus on the resolution could not be applied to that paragraph.

UNGA 55/33Q (L.38/Rev.1)
Illicit Traffic in Small Arms and Light Weapons

Introduced by South Africa and co-sponsored by over 80 countries from all groups

Recognising the human suffering caused by illicit trafficking of small arms and the interface between it and violence, criminality, drug trafficking, illicit diamond trade, terrorism, and recalling various initiatives, meetings, statements and decisions on the issue, this resolution requests the Secretary-General to continue his consultations and to provide the 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects with information on the magnitude and scope of the problem, measures for how to combat it and the UN' role. It encourages regional and subregional initiatives and encourages states to take national measures to destroy surplus, confiscated or collected small arms and light weapons and to provide information on the types and quantities destroyed. Also invites states to respond positively to requests of assistance in their destruction and the Secretary-General to provide advisory and financial assistance in support of measures combating the problem.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/33P (L.35)
Conventional Arms Control at the Regional and Subregional Levels

Introduced by Pakistan with several co-sponsors from all groups including Bangladesh, Fiji, Nepal, Germany and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Stresses the importance of conventional arms control at regional and subregional levels and expresses the desire to promote agreements that strengthen regional peace and security at the lowest possible level of armaments and military forces, believing that militarily significant countries have a special responsibility to promote them. The resolution notes initiatives in this regard in Latin America, Europe (the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) and South Asia. Decides to give urgent consideration to regional arms control, and requests the CD to consider principles that can serve as a framework for regional agreements.

First Committee, October 26: 145-1-1

UNGA: 163-1-1

First Committee comments: India (which the resolution is generally considered to be aimed at) voted against and Bhutan abstained. India referred to the 1993 UNDC guidelines and argued that OP2 which requests the CD to "consider formulation of principles that can serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control" had "no productive value". It also objected to PP6, which notes proposals for conventional arms control in South Asia, saying that its definition of South Asia was too narrow and did not take account of all of India' security concerns (understood to mean China).

UNGA 55/33V (L.44)
Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Treaty)

Introduced by Norway with co-sponsorship from some one hundred countries

The resolution welcomes the entry into force of the Ottawa Treaty on March 1, 1999 and "the substantial progress made towards addressing the global landmine problem", referring to the states' determination to put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-personnel landmines and to do the utmost to remove and destroy them. It recalls the first and second meetings of the states parties in Maputo and Geneva and notes with satisfaction that there are 107 countries that have now formally accepted their obligations under the Ottawa Treaty. The resolution invites all states that have not signed, and all states that have signed but not yet ratified, to do so, and stresses the importance of full and effective implementation of, and compliance with, the Convention. It invites and encourages all interested states, the UN, relevant organisations and institutions, regional institutions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and relevant NGOs to participate in the programme of inter-sessional work established at the First Meeting of the States Parties. It requests the Secretary-General to undertake the necessary preparations for the Third Meeting to be held in Managua from September 18 to 21, 2001.

First Committee, October 26: 127-0-22

UNGA: 143-0-22

First Committee comments: Cuba, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan, South Korea - all of which abstained on the resolution - said that while they supported the humanitarian goal of the Ottawa Treaty, they could not join the treaty or give up APL at the moment for reasons of national security. Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Turkey (also not parties to the treaty) cited national security reasons but voted in favour of the resolution, saying that they were conscious of the humanitarian suffering APL cause. Some abstainers, such as Cuba and Egypt, argued that the draft resolution did not reflect an adequate balance between humanitarian objectives and national security, as some countries did not have adequate resources to obtain financially feasible alternatives for self-defence. Cuba said it could not abandon landmines because of "a constant policy of aggression and hostility by another country" (the United States). Egypt, which continues to suffer from mines left on its territory after the Second World War, complained that the Ottawa Treaty failed to address the question of responsibility in cases where belligerent countries had planted APL in the territories of other states. In abstaining, Egypt said that it would continue to pursue a "more comprehensive and complete convention". Libya said it abstained because the treaty did not actually require the elimination of landmines.

Singapore said it has had an indefinite export moratorium on all kinds of landmines in place since 1998. Israel and Pakistan said that they too had moratoria in place. Israel was considering extending it beyond the current deadline of 2002, possibly indefinitely. Raising concerns about terrorist attacks against its troops and civilian population, Israel argued that they made APL necessary. Advocating a gradual and regional approach on the issue, Israel said it had stopped production and called on others in the region to do the same. Pakistan said it had a long border and lived under constant threat, constraining it to use landmines. It argued that universal adherence to Protocol II of the CCW would solve the humanitarian problems associated with these mines. Turkey stated that it had banned the sale and transfer of landmines through 2002. Cuba felt that all international transfers of APL should be banned.

India, Myanmar (Burma) and South Korea supported negotiations in the CD on APL. India remained committed to a non-discriminatory universal and global ban through a phased process that would address the '' role of APL for operations under the defence doctrines of the countries concerned. Meanwhile, the CD could start negotiations on banning APL transfers. Myanmar (Burma), which is not a party to the treaty, believed that the easy availability of APL contributed to the destruction caused by APL, and argued that while a total ban on APL was not yet timely, countries should address in the CD their illicit trafficking. Iran called for complementary efforts and new and alternative means to deal with the issue and said it was encouraged by the recent initiatives in mine clearing, although much still remained to be done.

UNGA 55/37 (L.50)
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW)

Introduced by Sweden with cross-group co-sponsorship from over fifty states

Recalls with satisfaction the entry into force of the CCW and Protocols I, II, III as well as the adoption of Protocol IV and the amended Protocol II. The resolution urges all states that have not yet become parties to the Convention and its Protocols, in particular amended Protocol II (mines, booby traps etc.), and all states parties that have not yet expressed their consent to be bound by the Protocols, to do so. It recalls the states parties' decision to hold the next review conference no later than 2001 and recommends that it be held in Geneva in December 2001, noting that the conference may consider any proposal for amendments to the Convention of the Protocols "as well as any proposal for additional protocols relating to other categories of conventional weapons" not covered currently.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

Regional Disarmament

Introduced by Pakistan with co-sponsorship by Bangladesh, Egypt, Fiji, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia and Turkey

Supports disarmament and confidence-building proposals at global, regional and sub-regional levels, stressing that "sustained efforts are needed" in the Conference on Disarmament and elsewhere under the UN umbrella on a range of disarmament issues, and affirming that global and regional approaches complement each other. Welcomes regional and subregional initiatives on nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament, and confidence building and calls for agreements, wherever possible.

First Committee, November 1: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Cameroon tabled an amendment to the resolution suggesting three additional paragraphs requesting all states to communicate with the Secretary-General on disarmament efforts and initiatives and confidence-building measures carried out at regional and subregional levels, inviting the Secretary-General to assist in the implementation and strengthening of disarmament initiatives and confidence-building measures and to report on the implementation of this resolution at the next UNGA. However, it withdrew these amendments saying it would come back with its proposals next year' session, having learned they would not be adopted by consensus. Cameroon now intends to return with a separate resolution addressing the matters raised in the amendment, to be submitted to the Committee next year.

Confidence Building Measures

Introduced by the Netherlands with co-sponsorship from some one hundred countries

Supports the UN Register of Conventional Arms, reaffirming its determination to ensure its effective operation and endorsing the Secretary-General' report and recommendation on its continuing operation and further development. The resolution calls on the member states to provide the requested data annually, including reports indicating nil exports, and calling for additional information on procurement from national production and military holdings wherever possible. It reaffirms that the Register' scope and participation should be kept under review; requests views on the continuing operation of the Register, its further development and on transparency measures with regard to WMD; and requesting the Secretary-General to convene a group of governmental experts to prepare a report on its continuing operation and further development. The Secretary-General is asked to implement the recommendations in his 2000 report and to ensure the Secretariat receives adequate resources to maintain the Register. UN member states are called on to cooperate at the regional and subregional levels to enhance and coordinate international efforts towards increased openness and transparency. Finally, the CD is requested to consider continuing its work on transparency in armaments.

First Committee, November1: Separate votes were taken on four paragraphs: PP5, OP2, OP5(b), and OP7 -

PP5: 134-2-12

OP2: 136-3-11

OP5 (b): 135-3-12

OP7: 132-0-16

Whole resolution: 133-0-17

UNGA whole resolution: 149-0-16

PP5: 149-2-10

OP2: 147-3-11

OP5 (b): 147-3-13

OP7: 144-0-17

First Committee comments: For the first time in several years, Egypt did not table its own transparency in armaments resolution advocating the inclusion of all weapons of mass destruction in the UN Register this year. Egypt' previous resolutions were particularly aimed at having nuclear weapons included in the register, principally because of Israel' nuclear programme. This year, in view of the NPT review conference outcome, which had gone further than in the past towards addressing Egypt' concerns about nuclear weapons, and the willingness of the TIA sponsors to reflect this in their text, Egypt decided to dispense with its rival resolution. For this reason, support for the perennial Netherlands resolution on TIA was higher than in previous years, although Egypt and most of the Arab countries, as well as China, North Korea, Mexico and Myanmar (Burma) abstained. Egypt and Syria voted against PP5, which welcomed the note by the Secretary-General on the continuing operation and further development of the Register; 11 other NAM countries and China abstained. This voting pattern was almost the same on OP2, which endorsed the report, but Lebanon voted against. Voting was similar on OP5(b), which asks the group of governmental experts to consider the Register' operation and development and mentions the Secretary-General' report and the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in this context; on this North Korea also abstained. Sixteen mainly Arab countries, as well as China, Cuba and Myanmar (Burma) abstained on OP7, which invited the CD to consider continuing its work on transparency in armaments.

While India supported the resolution, Pakistan, which abstained, said it could not support the convening of another group of governmental experts called for in OP5(b), feeling this was unwarranted. Myanmar (Burma) said the request was premature and too ambitious. Myanmar (Burma) said transparency needed to be universal, non-discriminatory and voluntary and should be applied to WMD, including nuclear weapons. Mexico, abstaining on the whole resolution due to the provisions on OP7, argued that the CD had not undertaken any work in the field of transparency in armaments for many years: its earlier work had led to the creation of the Register, but this had exhausted the present possibilities and the draft offered no direction as to what the CD should do now. Cuba abstained because the CD had already concluded its work on transparency and because any decision to resume work on TIA should be entirely up to the CD itself. Myanmar (Burma) said it was not justifiable to invite the CD to resume work already undertaken. Furthermore, the CD was not in a position to agree on a programme of work for next year so it was "unwise to take a hasty decision" on this issue.

Libya, who spoke on behalf of the League of Arab States, said the League promoted transparency in armaments. However, in order to have a successful mechanism, it needed to be balanced, comprehensive and non-discriminatory. The UN Register was a global attempt but had a number of problems as almost of the member states constantly failed to provide it with data. Currently, the Register did not take into account the unique situation in the Middle East where Israel continued to possess nuclear weapons, was the only non-signatory to the NPT, and refused to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, while also occupying Arab territory. To make the Register more balanced and comprehensive and to attract universal participation, the Arab League considered that its scope should be expanded to include WMD and nuclear weapons. A number of Arab countries made individual statements supportive of the Arab League' statement and reiterating its arguments, often in heavier language. Israel rejected these statements, accusing some of making political insults. Israel said it had co-sponsored the resolution, unlike many of the other countries in the region that continued to stockpile weapons.

China regretted that the United States "blatantly disregarded" the provision on arms transfers among sovereign states, using a footnote to submit date on its arms transfers to Taiwan, a province of China. This violated Chinese sovereignty and interfered in its internal affairs by creating "two Chinas" or "one China/one Taiwan", thereby leading to the Register' politicisation. Cuba, which supported the draft, also said it favoured the inclusion of WMD in the Register, believing that this would contribute to the Register significantly.

UNGA 55/34B (L.12)
Regional Confidence-Building Measures: Activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa

Introduced by Burundi

Supports the work of the Standing Committee, particularly activities aimed at confidence-building measures at regional and sub-regional levels in order to reduce tensions in Central Africa. Requests voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund supporting the Committee' work and the Secretary-General' assistance in carrying out its work.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

Disarmament Machinery

Introduced by Bulgaria (outgoing CD President)

This resolution endorses the report (A/55/27) and work of the Conference on Disarmament, which has in fact been deadlocked over its programme of work since completing the CTBT four years ago (with the exception of a few weeks in 1998). The resolution reaffirms the CD as the world' "single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum". Welcoming its "strong collective interest" in commencing work and the CD' decision to hold presidential consultations during the intersessional period, the resolution urges it to make early substantive progress as soon as possible during its 2001 session.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/35A (L.3/Rev.1)
Twentieth Anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)

Introduced by France

Welcomes the twentieth anniversary of UNIDIR, recognising the importance of its work. It also reiterates the need to conduct independent research on disarmament on security matters. The resolution requests member states to make financial contributions to the Institute and, most significantly, recommends that the UN Secretary General seek ways to increase the funding of the Institute, within existing resources.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/34A (L.9)
United Nations Disarmament Information Programme

Introduced by Mexico

Stresses the importance of disseminating arms control and disarmament information, and the programme' role in this respect and makes recommendations for its focus. Also invites contributions to the voluntary fund and takes note of the UN Advisory Board' proposal on a study on disarmament and non-proliferation education.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/33E (L.10)
United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education

Introduced by Mexico

A new resolution that has its origins in a proposal by the UN Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, this expresses the desire to promote concerted international disarmament and non-proliferation efforts and stresses the need to combat cultures of violence and complacency in the post-Cold War era. It requests the Secretary-General to prepare a study, with the assistance of governmental experts, to assess the contemporary situation on disarmament and non-proliferation education and training and make recommendations to promote them at all levels.

First Committee, October 27: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/34C (L.13*)
United Nations Disarmament Fellowship, Training and Advisory Services

Introduced by Nigeria

Expresses appreciation to governments, international organizations and academic institutions for having organised study programmes for the fellows and for the Secretary-General for carrying it out. Calls on the UN to continue to implement the programme annually.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Cuba stressed the programme' importance in particular for developing countries, saying that it set a good example. However, Cuba regretted that this year a Cuban fellow had been denied a visa by the United States, calling the event an example of discriminatory practices which could not be justified, a complaint with which Syria agreed.

UNGA 55/34D (L.14/Rev.2)
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa

Introduced by Lesotho on behalf of the African Group

Commends the Centre' activities, reaffirms strong support for its revitalization and emphasises the need for resources in order to strengthen its programmes and activities. The resolution appeals for voluntary contributions and UN support. Also requests the UN to facilitate cooperation between the Centre and the OAU.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Cameroon saluted the Centre for the work it had done, despite the lack of adequate resources.

UNGA 55/34E (L.17)
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean

Introduced by Belize on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group

Reiterates strong support for the Centre and expresses satisfaction over its activities last year as well as the political and financial support given to the Centre. Invites countries in the region to take part in its activities, making better use of its potential and appeals for more voluntary contributions to strengthen its programme of activities. Also requests support from the UN to enable it to carry it out and achieve better results.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/33M (L.23)
Convening of the Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (UNSSOD IV)

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of NAM

Similar to resolutions in past years, this decides "subject to the emergence of a consensus on its objectives and agenda"(there is none currently) to convene SSOD IV, believing that it "can set the future course of action in the field of disarmament, arms control and related security matters".

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/34F (L.24)
United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of NAM

Reiterates the importance of UN activities at regional levels and in this context, supports the educational programmes in the three regional centres (Nepal, Peru and Togo), and their role in changing basic attitudes towards peace, security and disarmament. Appeals for UN, governmental and NGO support for the centres.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/35C (L.26)
Report of the Disarmament Commission

Introduced by Iran

Supports the UN Disarmament Commission, reaffirming its role as "the specialized, deliberative body...that allows for in-depth deliberations" of disarmament issues. The resolution also reaffirms the importance of cooperation between the UNDC, First Committee and the Conference on Disarmament. It requests the UNDC to meet "for a period not exceeding three weeks" next year and suggests that it consider the following items at that session: "ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament" and "practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms".

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/34H (L.33)
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific

Introduced by Nepal

Commends the Centre' activities and the "Kathmandu process" as a vehicle for region-wide security and disarmament dialogue. The resolution appeals for support from the UN, and for voluntary contribution from governments and NGOs. It expresses appreciation for Nepal' offer to bear the operational costs for the Centre to operate from Kathmandu and requests the Secretary-General to expedite and conclude his consultations by July 31, 2001 to assess the possibility for the Centre to operate from Kathmandu.

First Committee, October 26: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Oman thanked Nepal for hosting the Centre and the King of Nepal for offering to bear the costs for the Centre to function from Kathmandu. It expressed its hope that the Centre, which currently operates from New York, would start operating from Kathmandu as soon as possible.

Other Disarmament Measures

Introduced by the Russian Federation

Introduced for the third year. Expresses concern over misuse and exploitation of information resources and technologies and calls on member states to consider these threats, as well as possible measures to limit them through the examination of relevant international concepts.

First Committee, October 27: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Now in its third year, concerns are still being expressed that this resolution is unclear and ambiguous and does not know what it wants to achieve. In general it is viewed as a coded flag of warning about the implications of US technology dominance, the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs, and the potential for information and electronic warfare.

UNGA 55/33K (L.21)
Observance of Environmental Norms in the Drafting and Implementation of Agreements on Disarmament and Arms Control

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of NAM

Raises concern about the "detrimental environmental effects of the use nuclear weapons" and calls on states to take measures in order to ensure that scientific and technological progress is applied so that there is no harm to the environment and sustainable development.

First Committee, October 27: 149-0-4

UNGA: 165-0-4

First Committee comments: As in previous years, Britain, France, Israel and the United States abstained. The United States said that it remained uncertain of the resolution' purpose because it saw no connection between environmental norms and arms control and disarmament agreements, saying that it would continue to question the resolution' relevance, value and utility. Iraq drew attention to the use by Britain and the United States of munitions made of depleted uranium, complaining that more than 3,000 tons of such munitions had been used against Iraq, and recently also against Yugoslavia. Iraq called on the international community to adopt an agreement banning the use of depleted uranium munitions, arguing that its toxic properties caused cancer and environmental disasters, and to take deterrent measures against those countries that use them.

UNGA 55/33L (L.22)
Relationship Between Disarmament and Development

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of NAM

Stresses "the growing importance of the symbiotic relationship between disarmament and development" and urges the international community to devote resources from disarmament and arms control agreements to economic and social development so as to reduce the gap between the developed and developing world.

First Committee, October 27: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Arguing that disarmament and development were two distinct issues, the United States said it had not participated in the consensus. It did not consider itself bound by the declaration of the 1987 International Conference on the relationship between Disarmament and Development. France spoke on behalf of the EU and associated countries saying that while they recognised the benefits that disarmament could bring to development, there was no direct link between the savings from disarmament and development.

Disarmament and International Security

UNGA 55/33G (L.15)
Consolidation of Peace Through Practical Disarmament Measures

Introduced by Germany

Stresses that arms control, especially with regard to small arms and light weapons, confidence-building measures, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants, demining and conversion are often prerequisites for maintaining and consolidating peace. Notes the Secretary-General' report on the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures and stresses the relevance of the UNDC "Guidelines on conventional arms control/limitation and disarmament". This year the resolution also takes into account the UNDC' deliberations on "Practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms" at the 2000 session. Encourages member states to collect and destroy small arms and light weapons in post-conflict situations.

First Committee, October 27: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/38 (L.27)
Strengthening of Security and Cooperation in the Mediterranean Region

Introduced by Algeria

Reaffirms that Mediterranean security is closely linked to European security and that all states have the responsibility to contribute to stability and prosperity in the region. The resolution notes that the peace negotiations in the Middle East should be of "comprehensive nature" and expresses concern over "the persistent tension and continuing military activities...that hinder efforts to strengthen security and cooperation in the region". It recognises that that the elimination of economic and social disparity and respect and understanding among cultures will contribute to peace and security. The resolution calls on Mediterranean countries to adhere to all multilaterally negotiated disarmament and non-proliferation agreements, if they have not done so yet, and to promote transparency by participating in the UN Arms Register and by reporting their military expenditures. It also encourages the countries to cooperate in combating terrorism, crime, illicit arms transfers, and illicit drug production, consumption and trafficking.

First Committee, October 27: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 55/29 (L.31)
Role of Science and Technology in the Context of International Security and Disarmament

Introduced by India with several NAM co-sponsors

Deals with dual-use (military-civilian) goods and technologies, expressing concern about proliferation of "ad hoc and exclusive export control regimes and arrangements, which tend to impede the economic and social development of developing countries". The resolution urges states to negotiate universally acceptable, non-discriminatory guidelines for international transfers, taking into account legitimate defence requirements and requirements for the maintenance of peace, while ensuring that transfers for peaceful purposes are not denied.

First Committee, October 27: 91-44-17

UNGA: 97-46-21

First Committee comments: The resolution was backed by most NAM countries and China. However, there were some abstainers in that group such as Brazil and South Africa. Russia, Argentina, Japan and South Korea abstained as well. NATO and EU and associated states voted against the resolution, which they view as hostile to the export control regimes, but did not put in a rival resolution of their own, as in some previous years.

UNGA 55/27 (L.47/Rev.1)
Maintenance of International Security - Good-Neighbourliness, Stability and Development of South-Eastern Europe

Introduced by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with co-sponsorship from several European countries and the United States

Affirms the urgency of consolidating South-Eastern Europe as a region of peace, security and stability, calls on participants of the Stability Pact to support efforts to overcome the negative effects of the Kosovo crisis and other recent crises and encourages the full implementation of the UN Security Council resolution (1244) on Kosovo, welcoming the efforts of UNMIK and KFOR in its implementation. The resolution calls for the respect of territorial integrity, sovereignty and international borders, stresses the importance of good-neighbourliness and friendly relations, and calls for the settlement of disputes by peaceful means. It stresses the importance of regional arms control, disarmament and confidence-building efforts and recognizes the seriousness of the anti-personnel mine problem in the region and urges all states to take measures against the illicit trafficking and help in the destruction of small arms and light weapons.

First Committee, October 31: 150-0-0

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Belarus called for a vote in the First Committee even though it did not register its vote. Belarus said it could not associate itself with the consensus because it retained certain reservations. Though the resolution was an important example of regional cooperation, Belarus questioned whether the First Committee was the right forum for its consideration since disarmament was not the resolution' primary objective, and suggested that the General Assembly was more appropriate. Cuba said it supported particularly the objectives in OP 4, 5 and 6 (territorial integrity, sovereignty, inviolability of borders, peaceful resolution of disputes, good-neighbourliness and mutual respect between countries). However, referring to the references of UN and NATO in Kosovo, Cuba said it did not necessarily endorse all elements in the draft, which needed to be considered more broadly.

This report and appendix was written by Jenni Rissanen, the Acronym Institute' Geneva Analyst, who attended the whole of the 55th First Committee in New York, and Rebecca Johnson, Executive Director of the Acronym Institute, who attended the final week.

© 2000 The Acronym Institute.