Disarmament Diplomacy
Issue No. 61, October - November 2001
UN First Committee Report: Summary of Resolutions
See also the UN First Committee Report, Business as Usual in a Changed World: The 2001 UN First
Committee, by Jenni Rissanen.
Resolutions cover the following issues:
Note
Voting is given as for:against:abstentions
'Consensus' 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 November 29, 2001. 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.
'Rev' 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 UNGA
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.
Full lists of First Committee co-sponsors, details and texts of
resolutions, summaries of statements, and voting details and
explanations of vote can be obtained from the websites of the
United Nations (http://www.un.org/News) and the
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org).
For details of UNGA action on the texts, see UN Press Release
GA/9983, November 29.
Nuclear Arms Control and Disarmament
UNGA 56/24B (L.6)
Missiles
Introduced by Iran
The resolution was first tabled last year, establishing a
Panel of Governmental Experts to prepare a report on "the issue of
missiles in all its aspects". This year, the resolution notes this
development with satisfaction and asks the Secretary-General to
continue seeking views on the issue. The Panel will submit its
report to the 57th session of the UNGA.
First Committee, October 31: 88-0-57
UNGA: 98-0-58
First Committee comments: Most NAM countries and China
supported the resolution. NATO, EU and Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) countries except Russia and South Africa
abstained.
Speaking before the vote, Pakistan welcomed the draft,
saying it was in favour of a global treaty on missiles as part of
the international disarmament regime and would like to see the CD
"tackle the topic" as a separate item in its agenda. Pending a
legal instrument, Pakistan was ready to consider de-alerting
measures and the issue of sensitive technology transfers. However,
such confidence-building moves needed to be "accompanied by
alternative" measures ensuring the maintenance of military
balances, especially in volatile regions. In addition, cooperation
in the peaceful use of missile technologies needed to be enhanced:
some states applied "unilateral and discriminatory measures" in
this regard. In Pakistan's estimation, the draft should have
"acknowledged the central danger posed by missiles equipped with
nuclear weapons" in the possession of the major powers.
After the vote, the United States said the text had
"raised a number of concerns". Last year, the US argued the Panel
might do more harm than good. Now, with the Panel's work in
midstream, it believed it was "not wise" to call countries to
submit further views until the 2-year study was completed.
Politically, there was also the danger that the resolution might
divert attention and resources to combat missile proliferation. The
United States believed various past efforts had proved effective at
a regional level, and were more productive than "vague and broad"
approaches. Japan underlined the threat of missile
proliferation, saying it had abstained because the draft had not
sufficiently emphasised this point or addressed efforts already
underway to fight the problem, in a number of which Japan was
participating. Like Japan, South Korea abstained, referring
to the need to stress the threat posed by proliferation,
particularly in light of recent ballistic missile "test-fires" (by
North Korea), saying these had "further underscored the urgent need
to address the problem" via a step-by-step approach. Belgium
took the floor in its capacity as holder of the of EU
presidency, explaining that the Union had abstained not because it
did not share the concerns about the risks associated with missile
technology, but because the text had not "taken a stand on the
essential issues" of the proliferation of missiles and missile
technology. Nor had it referred to multilateral and concrete
measures aimed at combating this problem. In the Union's view,
there was a need for a comprehensive and global approach. The EU
had adopted a common approach on June 3, committing itself to
making the draft MTCR Code of Conduct a universal, legally-binding
instrument through international negotiations beginning next year.
The EU welcomed the UN Panel's work, saying its deliberations could
be useful in advancing mutual understand on the issue; it was not,
however, a negotiating forum. Australia said that although
the issue "warranted attention", the resolution continued to be
problematic, notably in its omission of an expression of concern
over ballistic missile proliferation. Australia was also a strong
supporter of the MTCR draft Code and urged all countries to
participate in negotiations on its formalisation. It was also happy
to take participate in the work of the UN Panel.
UNGA 56/24A (L.1/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 1999, aims to rally
international support for the ABM Treaty and 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 deploying 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's 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 urges all countries to
"support efforts aimed at stemming the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and their means of delivery". At France's
insistence, the resolution this year includes a new operative
paragraph (OP7) welcoming the on-going dialogue between Russia and
the United States "on a new strategic framework premised on
openness, mutual confidence and real opportunities for cooperation,
which is of paramount importance, especially in a changing security
environment, and hopes that this dialogue will successfully lead to
substantial reductions in offensive nuclear forces and contribute
to the maintenance of international stability".
First Committee, November 2: 80-3-63
UNGA: 82-5-62
First Committee comments: The resolution commanded
similar support to last year, when it was adopted by the Committee
by a vote of 73-3-65. NATO countries abstained, as did EU states
with the exception of Ireland, which voted in favour. France
changed its vote from a yes last year to an abstention, despite the
sponsors' attempt to entertain its request to include a new
paragraph on US-Russia consultations. Only the United States,
Israel and Micronesia voted against.
Speaking before the vote, the United States said the
revision of the draft had "added nothing to the resolution". It
would vote no because "the issues related to the Treaty remained a
matter for the treaty parties". Given the discussions on a new
strategic framework, the resolution was "even more inappropriate".
France justified its impending change of vote by saying "the
world had changed" and the conditions of international balance had
to be "redefined", as was occurring in the context of on-going
consultations. Despite OP7, this year's text had "not reflected the
changes" and offered no "keys to the new international system".
Pakistan said it was voting in favour because the Treaty was
widely regarded as "a pillar of strategic stability". The
international community needed to arrive at a consensus "on the
relationship between offensive and defensive weapons". The draft
had not addressed the issue of regional stability. Pakistan urged
the sponsors to "exercise self-restraint in supplying ABM systems"
to Pakistan's "eastern neighbour", as this could have a
destabilising effect in the region. India intended to vote
in favour, wishing to reaffirm the importance of "full
implementation" of all existing agreements "including the ABM
Treaty". Pending the results of the on-going consultations, "the
points in the text remained valid". Iran referred to the
Treaty as the cornerstone of strategic stability, saying "all
efforts should be made to preserve it". Its fate should not depend
on only two countries since "any change would affect the
international security environment, destabilise strategic balance
and stimulate a new nuclear arms race." Syria intended to
vote in favour despite objecting to the references to missile
proliferation (PP7 and OP5), saying they detracted from the
resolution's main objective and even encouraged the violation of
the Treaty's objectives, running counter to the draft's purpose.
Tajikistan said that although the Treaty had a restricted
number of participants, the health of its regime concerned "every
nation, small and large".
After the vote, Chile expressed concern about the
possible dangers resulting from the development of ABM systems,
some if which could be placed in outer space. However, Chile had
abstained on this occasion in the hope that the US and Russia would
reach an accommodation. The Philippines also abstained,
welcoming the on-going dialogue and awaiting its results "with keen
interest"; it shared the view, however, that the Treaty played an
important role in maintaining global strategic stability and
"restraining missile proliferation". Germany, on behalf of
almost 30 European countries and Canada, explained that these
countries had abstained because the resolution lacked "the support
of both Treaty parties". The countries also recognised the
importance of the Treaty in "contributing to strategic stability"
over the past decades and welcomed the discussions on a new
strategic framework. In this regard, it was hoped the forthcoming
summit between Presidents Bush and Putin would lead to an agreement
"that would serve as a basis for further reductions and strategic
stability"; meanwhile, the NPT remained the cornerstone of the
nuclear non-proliferation regime and an "essential foundation for
the pursuit of nuclear disarmament". Sweden agreed with
Germany that the resolution needed both sides' support. While
welcoming indications of possible deep cuts in US and Russian
nuclear arsenals, Sweden stressed that "a decision on such
reductions should take the shape of formalised agreements that were
verifiable, transparent and irreversible". Although it was
concerned with possible unilateral action with regard to the
deployment of ABM systems, Sweden did "not share the overriding
preoccupation with strategic stability", suggesting, as it had at
the 2000 NPT Review Conference, that the concept was linked to Cold
War thinking and should not dictate the contemporary approach to
disarmament questions. Nepal said the reasons for its
yes-vote were as valid this year as last: undermining the treaty
would have negative consequences for global strategic stability.
Ukraine abstained, acknowledging the importance of the
treaty and hoping the US-Russian dialogue would soon produce
agreements "in support of strategic stability worldwide".
Decision: Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World - The Need for A
New Agenda (L.15)
Introduced by South Africa on behalf of the New Agenda
Coalition
This procedural decision simply retains the topic as an item
on next year's agenda. The New Agenda countries decided not to
table a resolution this year, instead issuing a communiqué
stressing the need for the implementation of the Final Document of
the 2000 NPT Review Conference, particularly the thirteen practical
nuclear disarmament steps.
First Committee, October 30: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Decision: United Nations Conference to Identify Ways of
Eliminating Nuclear Dangers in the Context of Nuclear Disarmament
(L.16 and L.60)
Introduced by Mexico
This procedural decision was originally a new resolution
calling for a UN conference "to identify ways of eliminating
nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament" no later
than 2006 "as a follow-up to the resolve expressed by heads of
State and Government in the Millennium Declaration". The draft
underlined the "need for the international community to address
nuclear disarmament and the non-proliferation of [WMD] in all its
aspects" and the "importance of complementing the efforts of the
[CD] and the review process of the [NPT]". The resolution, L.16,
was withdrawn and replaced with the decision, L.60, to include the
item on next year's agenda.
First Committee, November 5: 101-7-34 (L.16 withdrawn,
November 2)
UNGA: 115-7-37
First Committee comments: One of the most discussed and
contentious resolutions in the First Committee this year. Faced
with strong opposition from the western NWS, and some hesitation
and opposition from primarily western NNWS, Mexico ran out of time
to gather sufficient support for its draft. The United States, as
well as Britain and France, reportedly exercised pressure on Mexico
not to introduce the draft in the first place. Overall, there were
fears that the Conference would establish a competing nuclear
disarmament venue to the NPT and take away from the preparations
for the 2005 NPT Review Conference. Mexico tried to meet this
concern by moving the date for the Conference from 2003 to 2006.
Eventually withdrawing the text, Mexico said it had realised the
issue was "a rather complicated matter". However, because it
regarded the convening of the Conference as one of the most
important commitments made by the heads of state in the Millennium
Declaration, Mexico would introduce the draft next year. This would
give it more time to explain its objective and to raise the level
of support for the resolution. Thus, Mexico tabled L.60, a
procedural decision to include the item on next year's agenda.
A vote was called on the decision. Of the NWS, Britain, France
and the United States voted against, with China and Russia in
favour. The New Agenda countries and Japan voted in favour;
Germany, Israel, Monaco, and Poland voted against. The abstainers
were primarily European countries as well as Australia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia and South Korea.
After the vote, Cuba said it would have voted in favour
of the substantive resolution. Cuba, which is not a NPT party, did
not share the view that the Conference would detract from other
disarmament efforts. Britain, also speaking on behalf of
France and the United States, said the three
countries were committed to the NPT as the cornerstone and
foundation of nuclear disarmament. They did not think the
Conference would contribute to nuclear disarmament, and it was
unlikely that discussions in next year's Committee would persuade
them otherwise. Germany, which also voted against the
decision, stressed the need to implement the 13 nuclear disarmament
steps agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference: nothing should take
away from this. It was also important to break the CD deadlock, and
the proposed Conference would undermine both the CD and the NPT.
Israel said it was not opposed in principle to discussing
nuclear dangers or disarmament; however, given the politicised
environment in such conferences that led to countries being singled
out, it was unlikely that discussions at the Conference would be
constructive.
UNGA 56/24O (L.38)
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: 2005 Review
Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and Its Preparatory
Committee
Introduced by Algeria
A short procedural resolution noting the decision on
strengthening the review process for the Treaty. Takes note of the
decision to hold the first Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting
in New York from April 8-19, 2002. Requests the Secretary General
to render the necessary assistance and services for the 2005
Conference and its Preparatory Committee.
First Committee, October 30: 141-1-3
UNGA: 156-1-3
First Committee comments: India asked for a vote and was
alone in voting against the resolution. The three other non-NPT
countries (Cuba, Israel and Pakistan) abstained. Pakistan
disassociated itself from the resolution, referring to its position
on the NPT. India also reiterated its "well-known" stance,
portraying the NPT as "ineffective" and noting that the optimism
generated by the 2000 Conference had proved "short-lived with the
unequivocal commitment unimplemented".
UNGA 56/24N (L.35/Rev.1)
A Path to the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Introduced by Japan
Japan introduced its revamped resolution for the second year.
The resolution draws heavily on the Final Document of the 2000 NPT
Review Conference, adding some elements, such as a call for a
moratorium on fissile material production, which Japan and others
had fought for unsuccessfully at the Review Conference. The call
for 'immediate commencement' of fissile material negotiations was
eliminated this year, as was the specification of a target date for
the entry into force of the CTBT (set at 2003 in last year's text).
The resolution also calls for efforts to prevent the proliferation
of WMD by confirming and strengthening transfer policies (most
references to export controls were deleted from the NPT Final
Document as part of the 'endgame' negotiations for consensus
language).
The resolution reaffirms the importance of the NPT's
universality, calling on 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) importance and urgency
of signatures and ratifications of the CTBT (NPT Final Document
language); (b) the establishment of an ad hoc committee in the CD
"as early as possible" to negotiate a fissile material production
ban "within five years" (instead of 2005 as last year), 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 unequivocal undertaking by the NWS to
accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading
to nuclear disarmament (Japan's decision to place the 'unequivocal
undertaking' in the operative portion of the resolution, as opposed
to the preambular section in the 2000 text, was criticised,
particularly by the New Agenda countries, both for implying that
the undertaking had yet to be given and for suggesting a link
between it and general and complete disarmament); (f) deep
reductions by Russia and the United States in their strategic
offensive arsenals, placing great importance on existing
multilateral treaties with a view to maintaining and strengthening
strategic stability and international security (new language,
replacing previous START references); (g) six specified steps by
all NWS leading to nuclear disarmament as outlined in the NPT
agreements. This year, a seventh step was added: reaffirmation that
the ultimate objective of disarmament efforts by states is general
and complete disarmament. In another slight amendment, the
resolution also recognises that the realisation of a
nuclear-weapon-free world will require further steps, including
deeper reductions in nuclear weapons, by all NWS "in the process of
working towards achieving their elimination". The resolution
further invites the NWS to keep the UN informed of their progress;
emphasises the importance of a successful 2005 NPT Review
Conference and notes the first PrepCom in 2002; welcomes ongoing
dismantlement efforts, calling on the NWS to place excess fissile
material under verification and further develop verification
capabilities; stresses the importance of the IAEA Model Protocol,
encouraging all states to conclude an additional protocol with the
Agency; and welcomes the adoption of IAEA resolution
(GC(44)/RES/19) on safeguards agreements. The resolution
additionally calls on countries to redouble their efforts to
prevent and curb nuclear weapons and WMD proliferation by
confirming and strengthening their transfer policies. Last year, a
vote was called on this paragraph; this year, a reference to
delivery vehicles was omitted and a new sentence added stressing
the importance of ensuring that transfer policies are consistent
with states' obligations under the NPT. Furthermore, the resolution
calls for the highest possible safety and security standards of all
materials that could contribute to proliferation, so as to prevent
them from falling into terrorist hands.
First Committee, November 1: 123-2-20
UNGA: 139-3-19
First Committee comments: Despite substantial controversy
and dissatisfaction, the resolution again commanded broad support
from EU and NATO states and the majority of the NAM. The United
States changed its vote from a yes to a no this year, finding
itself alone with India in opposing the draft. Britain, voting yes
again, was accompanied by France, an abstainer a year ago. As in
2000, China and Russia abstained, along with the New Agenda
countries en bloc, Belarus, Bhutan, Cuba, North Korea, Iran,
Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar (Burma), Pakistan, and San Marino.
After the vote, South Africa spoke on behalf of the New
Agenda. Stressing that one of the most significant outcomes of the
2000 NPT Review Conference had been the unequivocal undertaking by
the NWS, South Africa said the resolution 'misappropriated' that
outcome in OP3, wrongly suggesting that the undertaking had yet to
be made. In addition, its placement established a false linkage
with general and complete disarmament. Although the New Agenda
abstained, however, this was not because it questioned Japan's
commitment to nuclear disarmament. China told the Committee
it agreed with the main themes of the resolution but had identified
some "major drawbacks", particularly failure to mention that the
countries with the biggest arsenals had a special responsibility to
engage in disarmament and abandon first-use based deterrence
strategies; moreover, compared to last year, the resolution
backtracked on the question of the ABM Treaty, making no mention to
it. Referring to its "unwavering commitment to nuclear
disarmament", India argued that the resolution failed to
promote this objective. It was necessary to replace the NPT with a
new framework, with equal and legitimate security for all. The
reference to the nuclear tests in South Asia (PP6) and the call for
universal adherence to the NPT (OP1) were examples of "hollow
rhetoric", as were the recommendations of the Tokyo report,
referred to in PP7. Furthermore, the call for a moratorium on the
production of fissile material in OP3(b) ignored political
realities. Germany made clear it had voted yes on the
understanding that the resolution enumerated only some of the
practical steps on nuclear disarmament endorsed by consensus at the
2000 Review Conference; all of these steps, however, would need to
be implemented. Chile appreciated the resolution's spirit
and had voted yes; it was not fully satisfied, however, referring
with unease to the new placement of the mention of the unequivocal
undertaking. Italy considered the resolution to have evolved
constructively from its first draft, and its positive vote
reflected this view. Italy appreciated the new clear wording on the
CTBT, the reference to START, and the language on fissile
materials; nevertheless, the draft remained selective in its
treatment of the Final Document, sometimes weakening certain
elements. Pakistan found several provisions unacceptable,
arguing that the emphasis should be on nuclear disarmament rather
than the NPT. Specifically, it was unhappy about PP8
(implementation of the Final Document), and PP9 and OP11
(strengthening IAEA safeguards); nor could it support OP3(b)
(fissile material production moratorium) or any other provisions
emanating from the Final Document. Austria voted in favour,
despite its view that wording on the IAEA safeguards system (OP11)
had fallen below Austria's expectations, being considerably weaker
than last year. The United States told the Committee that it
was "compelled to vote no" due to the resolution's CTBT language.
Had it been in line with the language used elsewhere (such as by
the G-8), the US "might have or would have" recommended another
vote. The United States subscribed to the spirit of the resolution;
at the same time, however, nuclear disarmament could not be
achieved in the absence of stronger non-proliferation controls to
preclude the transfer of WMD and related technologies. The US had
made clear its commitment to the NPT and its readiness to
contribute to the implementation of the Final Document. Its vote
should "in no way" be seen as a "repudiation" of those parts of the
text that supported those same principles. Arguing that any
resolution on nuclear disarmament must faithfully reflect the
balances achieved at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, France
said Japan's resolution fulfilled this requirement, particularly
with regard to the unequivocal undertaking and the reference to
general and complete disarmament. Cuba spoke last, saying that the
elimination of nuclear weapons was a top priority. The resolution,
however, dealt with selective issues related to non-proliferation.
The path to nuclear disarmament did not lead through
non-proliferation, as implied in OP1. Nor would the NPT manage to
suddenly rid the word of nuclear weapons: the much-vaunted
unequivocal undertaking was in fact nothing new and should have
already been brought to fruition. Multilateral negotiations were
required to lay down a time frame for achieving elimination; a
reality that had not been reflected in OP3(c).
UNGA 56/24R (L.44/Rev.1)
Nuclear Disarmament
Introduced by Myanmar (Burma) with co-sponsorship from
close to 50 NAM states
This resolution is generally regarded as the NAM disarmament
resolution. However, since last year, when Myanmar departed from
past practice and referred to the NPT, welcoming the positive
outcome of the 2000 Review Conference and borrowing wording from
the Final Document, India and Pakistan have distanced themselves
from those parts of the resolution. The text repeats calls for a
phased programme of nuclear disarmament, referring to past calls
for timebound nuclear disarmament only in the preamble. The
resolution repeats the call for an international conference on
nuclear disarmament and, as a new element this year, endorses the
proposal to hold an international conference on eliminating nuclear
dangers, but is in other respects closer to the middle ground,
recognising 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 NWS are urged immediately to 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. As part of a step-by-step
approach, the NWS are further urged to agree a legally-binding
instrument on a joint undertaking not to be the first to use
nuclear weapons; to conclude a legally-binding international treaty
on negative security assurances; and to begin plurilateral
negotiations "at an appropriate stage" on further deep reductions
on the basis of the principle of the irreversibility of such
reductions. The resolution additionally 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,
and 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 upon it to establish
such a body to "deal with" nuclear disarmament and commence
negotiations on a phased programme leading to the eventual
elimination of nuclear weapons. This year, three new preambular
paragraphs were added, mentioning the UN Disarmament Commission's
guidelines on nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs), welcoming the
Millennium Declaration and its resolve to strive for the
elimination of WMD, and recognising the dangers of the use of WMD,
particularly nuclear weapons, in terrorist acts.
First Committee, November 5: A separate vote was taken on
OP9, which welcomes the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference
-
OP9: 132-3-6
Whole resolution: 90-35-19
UNGA whole resolution: 103-41-17
OP9: 149-3-6
First Committee comments: India, Israel and Pakistan
(which abstained last year) voted against OP9; Cuba abstained.
Other abstentions on this paragraph included four NWS, Britain,
France, Russia, and the US. Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine, who all
abstained last year, this year voted in favour. As a whole, the
resolution received the support of most NAM (India and 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, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Russia
abstained.
Stressing its commitment to nuclear disarmament, Pakistan
explained that the text incorporated provisions in PP6, OP6 and OP9
which were inconsistent with its position with regard to the NPT.
India expressed disappointment at the turn the resolution had taken
in recent years, having "diluted a number of long-standing
positions of the NAM and the Group of 21 on nuclear disarmament".
China said it had voted yes because it supported the main
thrust of the resolution; however, it also stressed that other
principles, measures and objectives were important, particularly
the preservation of the ABM Treaty, the principle that states with
the largest nuclear arsenals should lead the way in nuclear
disarmament, and cognisance of the reality that transparency
measures could only be implemented effectively in an environment of
peace, security, stability and trust. Japan said the
resolution contained a number of positive elements, including a
reference to the NPT as a cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. Japan had abstained, however, because the draft
still included the element of a specified timeframe for nuclear
disarmament.
Decision: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
(L.10/Rev.1)
Introduced by New Zealand with over 70 countries from
different groups
New Zealand tabled a procedural decision this year, as
opposed to the customary resolution, in view of the imminence of
the CTBT's Entry-Into-Force Conference. The decision retains the
CTBT as an item on next year's agenda. A first draft included a
reference to last year's CTBT resolution; this reference was
objected to by India, which had disassociated itself from similar
language in the 2000 resolution, and was removed to preserve
consensus. However, in a highly unusual move, the United States
asked for a vote in order to record the fact that it did "not
support the CTBT".
First Committee, November 5: 140-1-0
UNGA: 161-1-0
First Committee comments: The United States astonished
the Committee with its request for a vote. Referring to the
Senate's decision not to ratify the Treaty in 1999, the US
delegation stressed that the Bush administration had "no plans to
seek reconsideration of the Senate's action". It did, however,
intend to maintain the US moratorium on testing, as well as to take
"seriously its obligations under the arms control agreements to
which we are party." "In that vein", the US reiterated its "strong
support for the NPT", emphasising, as a NWS, its "special
responsibility under Article VI of the NPT".
UNGA 56/24C (L.14)
Reducing Nuclear Danger
Introduced by India
The resolution was introduced for the fourth time. It warns
against nuclear weapons being left on hair-trigger alert and
emphasises that until nuclear weapons cease to exist, the NWS must
provide NNWS with assurances 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 proliferation and to promote
nuclear disarmament. Slightly revised this year, the resolution
takes note of the UN Disarmament Advisory Board's report and its
seven recommendations to reduce the risk of nuclear war, including
the call made in the Millennium Declaration for convening an
international conference on nuclear dangers. It further asks the
Secretary-General to "take steps towards" their implementation and
report back to the 57th session of the UNGA.
First Committee, October 30: 89-43-13
UNGA: 98-45-14
First Committee comments: Although there was considerable
initial scepticism about India's motives for sponsoring this
resolution after its nuclear tests in 1998, the resolution enjoys
substantial support, particularly from the NAM states. This year,
opposition came primarily from the NWS, except China which
abstained, the EU, NATO and states wishing to join NATO.
Pakistan said the best way to eliminate the dangers was
to eliminate the weapons; to this end, interim arms control and
disarmament measures had to be supported. Although Pakistan had
reservations on some of the draft's provisions, it voted in favour
since it strongly supported its basic objectives.
UNGA 56/24S (L.45)
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 efforts and measures
taken on the implementation of the resolution.
First Committee, October 30: A separate vote was taken on
OP1, which underlines the unanimous ICJ conclusion regarding the
legal obligation to negotiate and bring to conclusion negotiations
leading to nuclear disarmament -
OP1: 139-4-2
Whole resolution: 99-28-19
UNGA whole resolution: 111-29-21
OP1: 153-4-2
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 the 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. Latvia moved from an abstention last year to a negative
vote. Abstainers included Australia, Canada, Estonia, Finland,
Japan, Kazakhstan, and South Korea.
Stressing that the ICJ Opinion was advisory and not legally
binding, the United States said the resolution tried to use
the Opinion as a justification for a Nuclear Weapons Convention,
which it did not support. The obligation to disarm derived from
Article VI of the NPT, not the ICJ. Unilateral and bilateral
efforts were yielding results and this approach was the only
realistic way for nuclear disarmament. Japan abstained,
saying that while it supported the Opinion, the topic was complex.
Elimination of nuclear weapons could be achieved through a
practical "step-by step process"; it was "rather premature" to call
for negotiations for a Convention to replace the NPT. The
Netherlands spoke on behalf of the Benelux countries as well as
Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal and
Spain. These states supported the Opinion and the idea of
ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons. However, they could not
support the resolution since it reflected only one aspect of the
Opinion. Advocating a step-by step approach in nuclear disarmament,
the countries emphasised that the focus should now be on the
implementation of the steps agreed at the 2000 NPT Review
Conference.
UNGA 56/24J (L.31)
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
To secure China's and Pakistan's support, the resolution
again 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. However, the resolution drops the NPT target of a
conclusion of negotiations 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, October 30: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: Pakistan joined the consensus
and said it would seek to resolve the question of stocks during the
negotiations. Israel said the idea of negotiations on a
treaty for the banning of the production of fissile materials was
subsumed in Israel's concept of a nuclear-weapon-free zone for the
Middle East. However, it stressed that the negotiations could not
be addressed in isolation, but would need to take into account the
peace process in the Middle East.
UNGA 56/25B (L.12)
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons
Introduced by India
India's recurring resolution argues that the use of nuclear
weapons poses the most serious threat to humanity 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 time
frame. The text refers to the ICJ Advisory Opinion and the Final
Document of the last United Nations Special Session on Disarmament
(UNSSOD I) in 1978, and requests the CD to commence negotiations on
an international convention prohibiting nuclear weapon use.
First Committee, October 30: 90-42-11
UNGA: 104-46-11
First Committee comments: In general the NAM states voted
in favour and NATO states against. The United States
described a Nuclear Weapons Convention as "not practicable".
Progress in nuclear disarmament had been made by step-by-step
efforts, taken unilaterally, bilaterally and multilaterally. This
approach would "continue to bear fruit in the years to come".
UNGA 56/22 (L.26)
Conclusion of Effective International Arrangements to Assure
Non-Nuclear-Weapon States Against the Use or Threat of Use of
Nuclear Weapons
Introduced by Pakistan and co-sponsored by a number of
NAM states
Another perennial resolution, this lists various decisions,
resolutions and statements on negative security assurances (NSA),
considering 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 CD on the topic and the fact 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". The text recommends further intensive efforts
to find a common approach, especially by the NWS, and urges that
the CD continue negotiations with a view to concluding an early
agreement.
First Committee, October 30: 94-0-52
UNGA: 105-0-54
First Committee comments: The NAM and China voted in
favour; NATO/Russia and their various allies abstained. South
Korea agreed with the need to examine the issue of negative
security assurances more closely but abstained, since the
resolution did not distinguish between NPT and non-NPT parties.
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones
UNGA 56/17 (L.9/Rev.1)
The African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of
Pelindaba)
Introduced by Sudan on behalf of the Group of African
States
The resolution endorses the Treaty of Pelindaba, opened for
signature in Cairo in April 1996, and calls upon all African states
to sign and ratify so that the Treaty can enter into force.
Appreciation is given to the NWS who have signed the relevant
Protocols, with calls to ratify as soon as possible. The resolution
also calls on Spain, to whom Protocol III applies, to take the
necessary measures to apply the Treaty to territories for which
they are responsible. It also calls on the African states parties
to the NPT to conclude safeguards agreements and additional
protocols with the IAEA.
First Committee, November 2: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: due to territorial claims and
concerns (with regard to the Canary Islands), Spain said it
disassociated itself from the operative paragraph (OP3) dealing
with Protocol III. The Protocol would create "a redundant control
regime" over Spanish territory due to the country's nuclear
agreement commitments with the EU, OSCE and NATO. Spain assured
delegates that its territory was already subject to the IAEA
safeguards and the European nuclear regulatory regime. It had
furthermore ratified the CTBT, was party to the Convention on
Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, and applied IAEA
recommendations. When Europe concluded an agreement de-nuclearising
its territory, Spain could accede to the Protocol.
UNGA 56/30 (L.17)
Consolidation of the Regime Established by the Treaty for the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean
(Treaty of Tlatelolco)
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
force in 16 countries in the region. The resolution welcomes the
consolidation steps taken and urges those countries which have not
yet deposited the amendment's ratification instruments to do so as
soon as possible.
First Committee, October 30: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/21 (L.5)
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's 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 30: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: Israel said it had joined the
consensus, as it has for the past 20 years, with some reservations.
It needed to be stressed that the NWFZ proposition must be dealt
with in the context of the peace process. Current political
realities required a step-by-step process, the first step being
confidence-building measures (CBM). Furthermore, such a zone could
be established only after consultations with all the countries in
the region, not in a situation where countries had declared that
they were in a state of war.
UNGA 56/24G (L.24)
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere and Adjacent Areas
Introduced by Brazil on behalf of the countries within
the Southern Hemisphere
Introduced for the sixth 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 the ratification of these accords by all
states in the regions concerned. The text also calls on concerned
states to work together in order to facilitate adherence to NWFZ
protocols, and 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. Stressing the role of NWFZs in strengthening
nuclear non-proliferation and extending the world's
nuclear-weapon-free areas "with particular reference to the
responsibilities of the [NWS]", the resolution calls on all states
to support the process of nuclear disarmament and to work toward
the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and urges the parties and
signatories to the treaties to explore and implement further ways
and means of cooperation. The resolution also welcomes the
"vigorous efforts" underway in various regions in the hemisphere
and proposes that an international conference be held in order to
support and reinforce common goals.
First Committee, November 2: Separate votes were taken on
the words 'and South Asia' in OP3, and then on the whole paragraph
OP3, which calls for the conclusion of new NWFZ treaties, including
in the Middle East and South Asia, and finally on the whole
resolution -
OP3 vote on 'and South Asia': 132-3-8
OP3 as a whole: 136-2-8
Whole resolution: 141-4-5
UNGA whole resolution: 148-4-4
OP3 vote on 'and South Asia': 140-2-8
OP3 as a whole: 145-1-7
First Committee comments: India, France and Pakistan
voted against the words 'and South Asia' in OP3. Having failed to
get them deleted, India then voted against the whole paragraph
together with France, which voted no for consistency's sake (it
voted no on the whole resolution). Pakistan changed its vote on OP3
to a yes from last year's abstention. As a whole, the resolution
received considerable support, although Britain, France, Monaco and
the United States voted against and India, Israel, Micronesia,
Russia and Spain abstained.
Before the vote, Pakistan asked for the removal of the
reference to South Asia in OP3 since "it flies in the face of the
reality of a nuclearised South Asia". India agreed it was
"unrealistic" to propose a NWFZ in South Asia in the current
circumstances. The proposal had as much as validity as proposing
the establishment of a NWFZ "in East Asia, Europe or North
America". The proposal, India added, also went against the basic
and well-established principles of any credible NWFZ process,
namely that such a regime needed to be freely arrived at.
Spain said it supported the establishment of NWFZs but was
opposed to the call in OP6 for the convening of an international
conference for NWFZ treaty parties and signatories. France ,
also speaking on behalf of Britain and the United
States , told the Committee that since the only area not
covered under existing agreements was the open ocean, and if the
zone was not meant to cover those areas, the Treaty would "add
nothing". To be useful, a new area covering certain international
waters would need to be added; however, that was against maritime
rights of free passage on the high seas provided for in the Law of
the Sea Convention.
UNGA 56/27 (L.25)
The Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East
Introduced by Egypt
Identical to last year's resolution, the 2001 text calls
attention to Israel's nuclear weapon capabilities. The resolution
draws on the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference,
welcoming the efforts undertaken to achieve the treaty's
universality. It 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 also reaffirms the importance of
Israeli accession to the NPT and placement of 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 2: There was a separate vote on
PP6 on the NPT Review Conference and the NPT's universality -
PP6: 139-2-6
Whole resolution: 139-3-7
UNGA whole resolution: 153-3-6
PP6: 153-2-4
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 said it opposed, "as every year, this
one-sided initiative" singling out one country in the region
without mentioning the country (Iraq) found to have been in
non-compliance with the NPT. The United States regretted "the
selective use of one-sided references" from the Final Document;
this did not advance but impaired non-proliferation efforts in the
region. Pakistan said it supported the resolution but
distanced itself from PP6 and OP3, which refer to the NPT, since it
could "obviously not accede" to the Treaty. Jordan had "long
advocated [a] just peace" in the region and believed that CBMs
needed to be introduced. In addition, the region needed to be freed
from nuclear weapons and WMD. It regretted that the "only state
with nuclear weapons" in the region was not prepared to accede to
the NPT and place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.
Israel spoke at length, rejecting the resolution in strong
terms, calling it "blatantly one-sided, contentious and divisive"
text which "undermined rather than enhanced" confidence between
countries in the region. Referring to the "sombre experience of
UNSCOM" in Iraq, and other efforts underway to acquire WMD, Israel
pointed out that since the resolution was first introduced the
region had experienced many developments "directly related to the
proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction."
The real risk of proliferation emanated from countries which did
not comply with the NPT despite being states parties. The text also
ignored the hostility of these countries towards Israel. The
singling out of Israel was thus "counterproductive" and did "not
lend the Committee any credibility". Israel's supreme objective was
to achieve a peace fully supported by arms control and
non-proliferation efforts. The new NPT references introduced last
year were "unbalanced and selective", using the Treaty as
ammunition "for yet another political assault against Israel".
Iraq reminded Israel of its record of non-compliance with
UN Security Council resolutions and said the "Zionist entity" was
the only country in the region with nuclear weapons. After the
vote, Canada said it had abstained because the resolution
failed to stress the importance of both adherence to and full
compliance with the NPT. India abstained on the resolution
on the whole, voting against PP6 as it referred to the NPT. India
argued that the resolution should focus only on the region it was
meant to address.
Decision: Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in
Central Asia (L.48)
Introduced by Uzbekistan
A decision to place the item on next year's agenda.
First Committee, October 30: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Other Weapons of Mass Destruction
UNGA 56/24K (L.32)
Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the
Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons
and on Their Destruction
Introduced by Canada and Poland
Unchanged, the resolution stresses the necessity of universal
adherence to, full and effective implementation of and compliance
with the CWC and appreciates the work of the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and its role in verifying
compliance and promoting the accomplishment of the Convention's
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 30: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: Egypt said it "sympathised"
with the intent of the resolution but stressed there needed to be a
total prohibition of all WMD in the Middle East. Egypt would not
join the CWC as long as Israel refused to join the NPT. Thus, it
did not consider itself to be part of any consensus decision,
particularly with respect to OP1, which emphasised the necessity of
universal adherence to the CWC. Israel said its decision to
sign the Convention reflected its "moral vision and commitment to a
world free of chemical weapons"; "unfortunately", however, others
in the region, including those that had used chemical weapons in
the past or were believed to be working to improve their chemical
weapons capabilities, had failed to follow suit, and had further
indicated that their position would remain unchanged even if Israel
became a CWC state party. Explaining its failure to ratify before
now, Israel said its security concerns had not diminished but
rather increased since it signed the Convention. Israel might
ratify if there was an "overall change" in the security
situation.
UNGA 56/24L (L.33/Rev.1)
Prohibition of the Dumping of Radioactive Wastes
Introduced by Sudan on behalf of the Group of African
States
Expresses concern about radiological warfare and the dumping
of nuclear or radiological wastes, calls on the CD to include such
dumping as part of any convention on the prohibition of
radiological weapons, which the text encourages the CD to
negotiate. This year, the resolution also welcomes the entry into
force in 2001 of the Joint Convention of the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management, calling on as many states as possible to join the
Convention and attend its first review meeting.
First Committee, October 30: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: the Dominican Republic
supported the resolution since it was acutely conscious of the
risks and costs to the marine environment. Given the susceptibility
of developing countries to the dangers of the dumping of
radioactive wastes, special consideration should be given to the
concerns of small island states. Pakistan said it took
responsibility for the safety of its nuclear materials; however, it
had reservations about PP9 and OP8 referring to the Joint
Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management. India was
fully supportive of the central objective in OP8, saying the
international community needed to be vigilant about the dangers and
risks of use of radioactive waste; it pointed out, however, that it
did not consider spent fuel as waste, but something that was useful
for energy purposes.
Decision: Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling and Use of Bacteriological (Biological)
Weapons and on Their Destruction (L.11)
Introduced by Hungary
Departing from past practice, this year only a procedural
decision was tabled, aimed at ensuring continued UN assistance in
the implementation of the decisions and recommendations of the
Fifth Review Conference of the BWC (November 19-December 7, 2001).
Hungary circulated an informal substantive draft resolution, but
opted for the decision because of profound differences on what the
resolution should say, particularly with respect to the BWC
Protocol negotiations which came to a halt after the US withdrawal
from the Ad Hoc Group (AHG) process in late July.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: before the decision was
adopted, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan and Russia expressed
disappointment that a substantive resolution had proved elusive.
China said it had hoped to see a resolution explaining why
the AHG's negotiations had come "to an abrupt stop" in July,
reconfirming the AHG mandate and referring to the continuation of
the Protocol negotiations. However, "resistance from certain
quarters" had prevented such a resolution. Russia said it
was "disappointed" about developments at the last session of the
AHG in July/August and had hoped for a substantive resolution
mentioning the AHG mandate. Cuba said it, too, would have
preferred a substantive text but accepted the decision in order not
break the usual consensus. Pakistan , noting that it was
"fully committed" to strengthening of the BWC and that the AHG
should conclude its task, hoped that the departure from the past
practice of tabling a resolution would "not be misinterpreted".
Iran , likewise regretting that only a decision had been
tabled, acknowledged that this could, however, be seen as a "wise
step" in difficult circumstances.
Arms Race in Outer Space
UNGA 56/23 (L.7)
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space
Introduced by Sri Lanka and co-sponsored by a number of
NAM countries as well as China and Russia
Recognises the common interest in the exploration and use of
outer space for peaceful purposes, irrespective of a state's degree
of economic and scientific development. Reaffirms the importance
and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space (PAROS),
recognising that it is necessary to consolidate and reinforce the
current outer space regime to provide guarantees against such a
development. The text 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" in strengthening
arrangements 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 environment.
First Committee, November 2: 145-0-3
UNGA: 156-0-4
First Committee comments: Israel, Micronesia and the
United States abstained. Pakistan reiterated its support,
saying it was "essential" not to allow weapons in space. Belgium
spoke on behalf of the EU and associated countries and
clarified the meaning of its support. It was in the CD that any
decision to prevent the weaponisation of outer space should be
taken, and while the EU was ready to support the establishment of a
subsidiary body on PAROS it stressed that its top priority was FMCT
negotiations.
Conventional Arms
UNGA 56/24U (L.51/Rev.1)
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
Updated this year, the resolution expresses concern about the
proliferation, illicit circulation and traffic of small arms and
light weapons in the Saharo-Sahelian subregion. Noting the missions
dispatched by the Secretary-General to study the most appropriate
way of addressing the problem, bearing in mind the 2000 Bamako
Declaration on an African Common Position on the Illicit Trade in
Small Arms and Light Weapons, and welcoming the Programme of Action
adopted at the 2001 UN Conference on Small Arms and Light Weapons
in All Its Aspects, the resolution welcomes various African
declarations on small arms and encourages the establishment of
national commissions to combat the problem. The resolution
recognises and encourages the role of civil society in these
efforts, and urges the international community to provide technical
and financial support to civil society to enhance and support its
contribution. The Secretary-General, states and relevant
organisations are asked to provide assistance in curbing the
illicit traffic in small arms and in collecting such
weapons.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: Egypt wanted more time to
consult with the sponsor, complaining that the resolution embodied
assertions and emphases which were "far from what was adopted at
Bamako and UN Conference", and warning that such deviation might
have a negative influence on the Conference's follow-up process.
Although others also appealed to the Chair for more time to consult
the sponsor, the resolution was put to the floor and adopted
without a vote in somewhat unclear circumstances after a short
break in proceedings, leaving some delegations, including Egypt's,
dissatisfied with the outcome.
L.47: Illicit Traffic in Small Arms and Light Weapons
Introduced by Colombia with Japan and South Africa and
with wide cross-group co-sponsorship from some 60 countries
This year saw a joint resolution endorsing the 2001 UN
Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All
Its Aspects and on formalising its follow-up process. Welcoming the
adoption of the Programme of Action, it decide to convene a
conference no later than in 2006 to review progress in programme
implementation, as well as to hold biennial meetings, starting in
2003, to consider its implementation on the national, regional and
global levels. All states are called upon to implement the
Programme with the support and engagement of civil society. The UN
is encouraged to undertake initiatives to further the
implementation process, as are other international, regional and
subregional organisations. States are also encouraged to destroy
surplus, confiscated or collected arms and to submit information on
this to the Secretary-General. UN resources and expertise are
requested to promote implementation, and a UN governmental experts'
study is urged on the feasibility of developing an international
instrument on marking and tracking small arms.
First Committee, November 5: consensus
UNGA: action postponed to later date, pending approval of
programme budget implications by the Fifth Committee
(Administrative and Budgetary)
First Committee comments: Pakistan noted that although
the Programme of Action was "not perfect", it was "a significant
step". It was now time to concentrate on its implementation as
efforts to revise or move beyond the programme could prove
counterproductive. The United States also expressed
satisfaction about the Conference and its results, particularly the
measures on export/import controls, enforcement of embargoes and
stockpile destruction. The Programme of Action, in the US view,
could "form the core" of a process greatly mitigating the damage
caused by the illicit trade. The United States also took the
opportunity to urge "budgetary discipline", saying the resolution's
budget implications needed further attention; however, the US
agreed that those talks should take place in the Fifth
Committee.
UNGA 56/24I (L.28)
Conventional Arms Control at the Regional and Subregional
Levels
Introduced by Pakistan with several co-sponsors from all
groups including Bangladesh, Fiji, Nepal, Spain 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 such moderation. The resolution notes initiatives in
this regard in Latin America, Europe (the CFE Treaty) and South
Asia. The resolution 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. This year,
the resolution also asks the Secretary-General, in the meantime, to
seek the views of the member states and submit a report to the 57th
session of the UNGA.
First Committee, October 31: 138-1-1
UNGA: 151-1-1
First Committee comments: India (which the resolution is
generally considered to be aimed at) voted against; Bhutan
abstained. India referred to the 1993 UN Disarmament
Commission (UNDC) guidelines and said it was "not convinced" about
OP2 which requests the CD to "consider formulation of principles
that can serve as a framework for regional agreements on
conventional arms control". 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 fully
reflect all of India's security concerns (understood to mean
China).
UNGA 56/24M (L.34)
Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on
Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention)
Introduced by Nicaragua with co-sponsorship from some 100
countries
Tabled for the third time, the resolution welcomes the entry
into force of the Ottawa Convention on March 1, 1999, and "the
substantial progress made towards addressing the global landmine
problem", referring to states parties' 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, second and third meetings of the states parties in Maputo,
Geneva and Managua and notes with satisfaction that 122 countries
have now formally accepted their obligations under the Convention.
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 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 Fourth Meeting to be held in Geneva from
September 16-20, 2002.
First Committee, October 31: 121-0-19
UNGA: 138-0-19
First Committee comments: South Korea said it shared the
concerns about APLs, both their humanitarian and security
implications. However, security concerns prevented it from joining
the Convention. Turkey , too, cited security as a reason it
had not been able to join. It had, however, placed a moratoria on
sales and was "determined to become a party" together with Greece,
as announced on April 6, 2001. Referring to APL left on its
territory after the Second World War, Egypt said it was one
of the worst affected countries with the continued existence of
some 22 million mines. Although, like others, it supported the
humanitarian objective of the Convention, it established no legal
framework requiring countries to clear the mines they had planted;
neither did it take into account the legitimate right to
self-defense. Libya supported the Egyptian statement and
called for amending the Convention to set out the obligations of
mine-planting countries. Pakistan was not a state party for
security reasons, but noted that it was party to Protocol II of the
CCW covering the use of mines, booby traps, and other devices.
Nepal supported the draft, but said its call for all
countries to accede was not possible "in light of security
concerns".
Speaking after the vote, Iran told the Committee that it
too shared the view that landmines had been used "irresponsibly",
taking the lives of women and children. However, the Convention was
not comprehensive since it did not take into account the concerns
of countries with long borders. Iran used mines under strict
regulations, with no incidences of civilian casualties. Iran had an
"evolving" position on this issue, however, and was prepared to
look at alternatives to landmines and ways of speeding up clearance
activities. Myanmar (Burma) said the root-cause of death
caused by landmines was their indiscriminate use. Thus, the issue
of use by non-state actors should be addressed "as a priority".
Since it was not yet "practical" for it to join the Convention,
Myanmar (Burma) had abstained on the resolution. India
argued that landmines enabled countries with long borders to
safeguard their security. India would support negotiations in the
CD on the illicit transfer of APLs, saying this should be the
focus. Cuba supported a ban on the indiscriminate use of
APLs and opposed their use in domestic conflicts; like India and
Pakistan, it stressed that it was party to Protocol II of the CCW.
Cuba abstained because the resolution made no reference to the
legitimate security interest of states. Israel supported the
ultimate goal of the Convention, was taking concrete steps such as
placing a moratorium on exports, had ratified Protocol II of the
CCW, and had participated in mine-awareness programmes in Angola.
It had abstained, however, because it could not support an
immediate ban. Singapore opposed indiscriminate use and had
extended its moratorium of exports indefinitely.
UNGA 56/28 (L.43*)
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 50 states
Recalls with satisfaction the entry into force of the CCW and
Protocols I, II and 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 the amended Protocol II on 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 welcomes the results of the
Second Annual Conference of States Parties to the Amended Protocol
II, held in Geneva on December 11-13, 2000, and the decision to
hold the Third Conference on December 10, 2001. Recalls also the
decision to hold the next CCW Review Conference on 11-21 December
2001 in Geneva and on the convening of the PrepComs. Welcomes the
proposals put forward by states parties and the ICRC for
consideration at the Review Conference, and mentions five
issue-areas: compliance procedures and mechanisms; explosive
remnants of war; extension of the scope of application of the
Convention and its Protocols to non-international armed conflicts;
landmines other than anti-personnel mines; and small-calibre
ammunitions.
First Committee, November 5: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: Algeria said after the adoption
of the resolution that it would have been happier if it had taken
into account (in OP5) all existing proposals for new measures to be
considered, instead of the five proposals named which Algeria
feared would now be accorded a higher status than the others.
Syria agreed, saying the paragraph was too selective.
Oman thought the resolution was "a step in the right
direction"; however, OP5 noted only a small number of proposals.
Indonesia , which is not party to the CCW, said it had some
problems with the resolution's conceptual approach; it did not,
however, wish prevent consensus. Malaysia wished to put on
record that it was not a state party.
Regional Disarmament
UNGA 56/24H (L.27)
Regional Disarmament
Introduced by Pakistan with co-sponsorship by Bangladesh,
Colombia, Egypt, Fiji, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sudan and
Turkey
Unchanged from last year, the resolution 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 to be
concluded wherever possible.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Confidence Building Measures
UNGA 56/15 (L.30)
Verification in All Its Aspects, Including the Role of the United
Nations in the Field of Verification
Introduced by the Canada with cross-group co-sponsorship
from 31 countries
A short resolution noting "the critical importance of, and
the vital contribution that has been made by, effective
verification measures in arms limitation and disarmament agreements
and other similar obligations". Asks the Secretary-General to
report to the 58th session on further views received from member
states.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/24Q (L.40)
Transparency in Armaments
Introduced by the Netherlands with co-sponsorship from
some 100 countries
Supports the UN Register of Conventional Arms, reaffirming
its determination to ensure its effective operation and endorsing
the Secretary-General's report and recommendation on its continuing
operation and further development. Calls on member states to
provide the requested data annually, including reports indicating
nil exports, and urges the submission of additional information on
procurement from national production and military holdings wherever
possible. The text further reaffirms that the Register's 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 requests 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, October 31: Separate votes were taken on
OP4 (b), which requests the Secretary-General, with the assistance
of a governmental experts panel, to prepare a report on the
continuing operation of the UN Register and its further
development, and OP6, which requests the CD to consider continuing
work on transparency in armaments -
OP4(b): 123-4-13
OP6: 123-0-17
Whole resolution: 121-0-22
UNGA whole resolution: 135-0-23
OP4(b): 133-4-12
OP6: 133-0-17
First Committee comments: As last year, this was the only
resolution on transparency on armaments; Egypt did not table a
rival resolution, as it had done prior to 2000. As a whole, most of
the Arab countries, as well as China, North Korea, Mexico and
Myanmar (Burma) abstained. Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon and Syria voted
against OP4(b). A number of Arab states and China, Cuba, Mexico and
Myanmar abstained on OP6.
Speaking before the vote on behalf of the League of Arab
States, Libya said the League supported transparency measures
such as the UN Register of Conventional Arms, which had been a
first attempt to address transparency on the international level.
The experiment had, however, proved problematic, with almost half
member states not participating. The scope of the Register needed
to be enlarged to include information on both sophisticated
conventional weapons and WMD including nuclear weapons. The Middle
East was "a special case" because of the lack of qualitative
balance in armaments; Israel continued to possess and develop
sophisticated weaponry, and was the only state in the region not to
have joined the NPT. A number of Arab countries took the floor in
support of the League's statement, including Egypt ,
Syria and Oman . Iran said the Register's goal
of comprehensive scope was "far from being reached"; the Register
should include nuclear weapons and other WMD.
After the vote, China noted that "a certain country" (the
United States), "in open defiance" of the fact that the Register
was a record of transfers between sovereign states, had registered
its arms sales to Taiwan, a province of China, using a footnote; as
a result, China had stopped reporting to the Register.
Algeria echoed what had already been said by many of the
Arab countries, claiming the Register remained insensitive to the
concerns of many countries. Myanmar (Burma) expressed a
reservation with regard to OP4 (b) and OP6. It was "premature" to
ask the Secretary-General to prepare a report on the Register's
continued functioning and its further development; nor were there
"enough reasons" to ask the CD to continue its work in this field.
Cuba , supported the resolution as "an extension of
gratitude for the Register". It had, however, abstained on OP6,
arguing that, with time, the number of participating countries
would increase.
UNGA 56/25A (L.2)
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 its
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's work, and asks for the Secretary-General's assistance
in carrying out its work. This year, a paragraph asking for the
help of the Secretary-General and UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights in the establishment and functioning of the Subregional
Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa was
deleted.
First Committee, November 5: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/14 (L.42)
Objective Information on Military Matters, Including Transparency
of Military Expenditures
Introduced by Germany, also speaking on behalf of
Romania
Convinced that transparency in military matters "is an
essential element for building a climate of trust and confidence",
the resolution calls on countries to report annually to the UN
their military expenditures, including submitting nil returns, and
encourages relevant international bodies and regional organisations
to promote transparency and consider exchanging information with
the UN. The text takes note of the Secretary-General's report and
requests him to continue asking countries to submit data, circulate
the reports on an annual basis, and encourage the UN regional
centres for peace and disarmament to provide information on the
reporting system. Asks member states to inform the UN about
possible problems in reporting, and to provide explanations of
non-reporting and suggestions on how to improve
participation.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Disarmament Machinery
UNGA 56/26B (L.36)
Report of the Conference on Disarmament
Introduced by Ecuador (outgoing CD President)
This resolution endorses the report (A/56/27) of the
Conference on Disarmament, which, with the exception of a few weeks
in 1998, has been deadlocked over its programme of work since
completing the CTBT in 1996. Reaffirming the importance of the
Conference as the world's "single multilateral disarmament
negotiating forum", the resolution welcomes the "strong collective
interest" of CD member states in commencing work and the CD's
decision to hold presidential consultations during the
intersessional period. The Conference is urged to make substantive
progress as soon as possible during its 2002 session.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/25D (L.29)
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in
Africa
Introduced by Sudan on behalf of the Group of African
States
Commends the Centre's activities, reaffirms strong support
for its revitalisation, 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
Organisation for African Unity (OAU).
First Committee, November 5: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/25E (L.46)
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and
Development in Latin America and the Caribbean
Introduced by Haiti on behalf of the Latin American and
Caribbean Group
Reiterates strong support for the Centre and expresses
satisfaction over its activities as well as the political and
financial support given to the Centre during the past year. Invites
countries in the region to take part in its activities, better
utilising 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 out activities
and achieve better results. This year the text also encouraged the
Centre to provide assistance to countries in the region in the
implementation of the UN small arms programme of action.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/24D (L.19)
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 past texts, the resolution decides, "subject to
the emergence of a consensus on its objectives and agenda"(there is
none currently) to convene a Fourth UNGA Special Session on
Disarmament, believing such an event "can set the future course of
action in the field of disarmament, arms control and related
security matters". The last such Session was held in 1988. This
year, there is an added reference to the proposal to hold an
international conference on nuclear dangers.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/25C (L.18)
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 supports the educational programmes in the three regional
centres (Nepal, Peru and Togo), commending their role in changing
basic attitudes towards peace, security and disarmament. Appeals
for UN, governmental and NGO support for the centres.
First Committee, November 2: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/26A (L.4)
Report of the Disarmament Commission
Introduced by Jamaica
Supports the UN Disarmament Commission, reaffirming its role
as "the specialised, deliberative body...that allows for in-depth
deliberations" of disarmament issues. The resolution reaffirms the
importance of cooperation between the UNDC, First Committee and the
CD. It requests the UNDC to meet "for a period not exceeding three
weeks" next year and suggests that it consider once again its
agenda items in 2001: "ways and means to achieve nuclear
disarmament" and "practical confidence-building measures in the
field of conventional arms".
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/25F (L.50)
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia
and the Pacific
Introduced by Nepal
Commends the Centre's activities and the "Kathmandu process"
as a vehicle for the security and disarmament dialogue in the
region. Appeals for support from the UN, and for voluntary
contributions from governments and NGOs. Expresses appreciation of
Nepal's offer to bear the costs of operating the Centre and
requests the Secretary-General to report to the 57th session of the
UNGA on progress in finalising arrangements allowing the Centre to
begin operations in Kathmandu.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: Nepal complained bitterly about
the bureaucratic difficulties encountered in finalising the
host-country agreement with the United Nations to relocate the
Centre from New York to Kathmandu, and urged a speedy resolution of
the issue.
Other Disarmament Measures
UNGA 56/19 (L.3/Rev.1)
Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in
the Context of International Security
Introduced by the Russian Federation
Introduced for the fourth year, the resolution expresses
concern over the misuse and exploitation of information resources
and technologies and calls on member states to consider these
threats, as well as examining possible international measures to
prevent and limit abuse. This year, the resolution is updated (OP1)
with a reference to the "need to preserve the free flow of
information". The Secretary-General is requested to "consider
existing and potential threats" in this field and "possible
cooperative measures to address them", as well as to establish a
group of governmental experts in 2004 to conduct a study on
"concepts aimed at strengthening the security of global information
and telecommunications systems". The Group is to report back to the
60th session of the UNGA.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
L.8: The Effects of the Use of Depleted Uranium in
Armaments
Introduced by Iraq
A new resolution, aimed at drawing attention to the use of DU
in ammunition and its possible harmful affects on human health and
the environment. Referring to "new types of weapons of mass
destruction", "the facts that have come to light on the use of
depleted uranium shells in military operations during recent
years", and the contamination of animal and plant life and soil,
the resolution requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of
states and relevant organisations' on "all aspects of the effects"
of DU use in ammunition and to submit a report to the 57th session
of the UNGA.
First Committee, November 5: 49-45-39
UNGA: 45-54-45, RESOLUTION DEFEATED
First Committee comments: The EU and NATO countries voted
against; Russia and China abstained. The NAM was split between
yes-votes and abstentions.
Cuba said NATO's use of DU in ammunition in the Kosovo
war and its subsequent impact had filled the news headlines last
year; parts of the Iraqi population, however, had been suffering
from the effects since 1991. DU was "extremely dangerous", with
"incalculable effects", and it would be "incomprehensible" not to
consider the issue. Pakistan abstained, taking issues with
the characterisation of DU ammunition in PP1 and PP2 as new types
of WMD; further, the health and environmental effects had already
been studied by the IAEA, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and
the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Belgium announced that the
EU had voted against the resolution for two reasons: it did
not consider DU weapons as WMD, and the extensive studies conducted
had not found that the weapons had any detrimental human or
environmental impact. The United States also referred to the
scientific evidence, arguing that talk about the weapons as WMD
simply could not be "taken seriously". New Zealand agreed,
reasoning it was not a good use of UN disarmament resources to
consider the question; it did, however, welcome further studies on
the long-term effects of DU ammunition.
UNGA 56/24F (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 of nuclear weapons", and calls on states to take
measures to ensure that scientific and technological progress is
applied to prevent harm to the environment and to foster
sustainable development.
First Committee, October 31: 141-0-4
UNGA: 154-0-5
First Committee comments: As in previous years, Britain,
France, Israel and the United States abstained. The United
States said it remained uncertain of the resolution's "purpose
and relevance", since there was no link between environmental norms
and arms control and disarmament agreements. "Of course no one
could oppose preserving the environment": environmental concerns
would naturally be "taken into account in negotiations". The US
operated under "stringent regulations, including in disarmament
activities".
UNGA 56/24E (L.20)
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 made available by
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 31: 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, and did not consider
itself bound by the declaration of the 1987 International
Conference on the Relationship Between Disarmament and Development.
Belgium spoke on behalf of the EU and associated countries,
arguing that while there were clear benefits that disarmament could
bring to development, there was no direct link between the savings
from disarmament and development.
UNGA 56/16 (L.22)
Implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of
Peace
Introduced by South Africa on behalf of NAM
Last tabled in 1999, the resolution supports the work of the
UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean, calling for UN resources
and the participation of the NWS and major maritime users of the
ocean in the Committee's work in order to "greatly facilitate the
development of a mutually beneficial dialogue to advance peace,
security and stability in the Indian Ocean region". The text takes
note of the Committee's annual report and asks its Chairman to
continue his informal consultations and to report to the 58th
session of the UNGA.
First Committee, October 31: 105-3-37
UNGA: 110-3-41
First Committee comments: Britain, France and the United
States voted against; Russia and China voted in favour.
Disarmament and International Security
UNGA 56/24P (L.39*)
Consolidation of Peace Through Practical Disarmament Measures
Introduced by Germany
With new references to small arms and light weapons, the
resolution stresses that "a comprehensive and integrated approach
towards certain practical disarmament measures often is a
prerequisite to maintaining and consolidating peace and security
and thus provides a basis for effective post-conflict
peace-building". The text highlights the following measures: the
collection and disposal, preferably through destruction, of weapons
obtained through illicit trafficking or manufacture as well as
surplus weapons and ammunition; confidence-building measures;
disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants;
demining; conversion. It further welcomes the programme of action
agreed at the UN Conference on Small Arms; encourages member states
to collect and destroy small arms and light weapons in
post-conflict situations; notes the UNDC's deliberations on
"Practical confidence-building measures in the field of
conventional arms" during its 2001 session; commends the
Secretary-General's 1999 report, prepared with the assistance of
the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, as an important
contribution to the consolidation of peace through practical
disarmament measures; and asks the Secretary-General to submit a
report on the implementation of the resolution at the 57th session
of the UNGA.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/29 (L.37)
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 a responsibility to
contribute to stability and prosperity in the region. Notes that
the peace process in the Middle East should be of a "comprehensive
nature" and expresses concern at "the persistent tension and
continuing military activities...that hinder efforts to strengthen
security and cooperation in the region". Recognises that that the
elimination of economic and social disparities, and enhanced
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 yet done so, and to
promote transparency by participating in the UN Arms Register and
by reporting their military expenditures. It also encourages the
states of the region to cooperate in combating terrorism, crime,
illicit arms transfers, and illicit drug production and
trafficking.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/20 (L.13)
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 goods and technologies, expressing
concern about the proliferation of "ad hoc and exclusive export
control regimes and arrangements, which tend to impede the economic
and social development of developing countries". 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 31: 86-42-16
UNGA: 92-46-17
First Committee comments: The resolution was backed by
most NAM countries and China. However, there were some NAM
abstainers, including Brazil and South Africa. Argentina, Japan,
South Korea and Russia also abstained. NATO and EU and associated
states voted against the resolution, viewing it as hostile to
existing export control regimes.
Decision: Reviewing the Implementation of the Declaration on
the Strengthening of International Security (L.23)
Introduced by South Africa on behalf of NAM
A procedural decision to include the item on next year's
agenda.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
UNGA 56/18 (L.41/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 Japan
Expanding each year, this is now a lengthy resolution aimed
at consolidating South-Eastern Europe as a region of peace,
security and stability, with reference to various UN resolutions,
the Stability Pact, declarations by and agreements between
countries in the region, including on borders, and the work of the
International Tribunal for the prosecution of humanitarian law
violators. Highlights contributions by the UN, OSCE, EU, and the UN
Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Calls for the
respect of territorial integrity, sovereignty and international
borders, stresses the importance of good-neighbourliness and
friendly relations, and urges the settlement of disputes by
peaceful means. Stresses also the importance of regional arms
control, disarmament and confidence-building efforts, recognising
the seriousness of the anti-personnel mine problem in the region
and urging all states to take measures against the illicit trade
and assist in the destruction of small arms and light
weapons.
First Committee, October 31: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: Cuba said it had not opposed
consensus out of respect for the wishes of the sponsors; it wanted,
however, to record its reservations concerning a number of concepts
embodied in the resolution.
UNGA 56/24T (L.49/Rev.1)
Multilateral Cooperation in the Area of Disarmament and
Non-Proliferation and Global Efforts Against Terrorism
Introduced by the Chair of the First Committee
A new resolution following the terrorist attacks of September
11, aimed at having the First Committee respond by stressing the
role of multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation efforts in
the fight against terrorism. Refers to various Security Council and
UNGA resolutions on terrorism, recognising the "close connection
between international terrorism and illicit arms trafficking and
the illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other
materials". Reaffirming the importance of all necessary steps to
combat terrorism, and noting with concern "the lack of sufficient
progress in multilateral disarmament diplomacy", the resolution
reaffirms multilateralism as "a core principle", asserting that
progress "is urgently needed". The resolution also calls on
countries to "renew and fulfil their individual and collective
commitments to multilateral cooperation in the area of disarmament
and non-proliferation" .
First Committee, November 6: consensus
UNGA: consensus
First Committee comments: The last resolution to be
adopted after the African Group, supported by the Arab Group, asked
for a 24-hour delay to consider the revised draft. It is understood
that some African and Arab countries felt they had not been
adequately consulted and had some further queries about the
resolution's contents. The resolution was adopted by consensus
after Sudan, speaking on behalf of the African Group
immediately prior to action on the draft, told the Committee "all
is well that ends well". Jordan, on behalf of the Arab Group
, noted that the Group had joined the consensus on the resolution
despite several reservations - in particular, the lack of a
reference in the operative portion to the need for "total adherence
by states to all disarmament and non-proliferation treaties" - and
an objection to the text's submission on a "take it or leave it"
basis.
This report and appendix was written by Jenni Rissanen,
Geneva Analyst at the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy,
who attended the 56th First Committee in New York.
© 2001 The Acronym Institute.
|
