Disarmament Diplomacy

Issue No. 68, December 2002 - January 2003

First Committee Report

See also: Anxiety, Hope and Cynicism: The 2002 UN First Committee, By Fiona Simpson.

Appendix: Summary of Resolutions

Note on Layout

Voting is given as for: against: abstention.

'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 22, 2002. 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.

For full details of UNGA action on the texts, see the UN website, http://disarmament.org.uk/vote.nsf, and UN Press Release GA/10105, November 22.

Nuclear Arms Control and Disarmament

UNGA 57/56 (L.40)
Conclusion of Effective International Arrangements to Assure Non-Nuclear-Weapon States Against the Use or Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons (NSA)

Introduced by Pakistan with co-sponsorship from Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, Cuba, DPRK, Egypt, Fiji, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Viet Nam and Zambia

The traditional resolution on security assurances asserts the need for the "independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty" of non-nuclear states to be protected against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. It proposes that, until nuclear disarmament has been achieved universally, such measures must be undertaken. Notes the lack of objection in principle to such an undertaking in the CD and appeals to all states to work towards its conclusion as early as possible.

First Committee, October 21: 98-0-54

UNGA: 106-0-55

First Committee comments: As in past years, most NAM states voted in favour of the resolution, while the enlarged Western caucus abstained.

UNGA 57/58 (L.2/Rev.1*)
Reductions of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons

Introduced by Ireland on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition

One of the two resolutions introduced by the New Agenda Coalition this year, this resolution seeks to highlight the necessity of reducing and eliminating non-strategic (aka tactical) nuclear weapons. It specifically calls for the reduction and elimination of such weapons in a transparent and verifiable manner, emphasising the commitments made by the NWS in the context of their NPT agreements with respect to this and their more general undertaking to achieve the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The resolution also calls upon the United States and the Russian Federation to formalise their 1991 and 1992 Presidential Initiatives into legal instruments, and calls for additional concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of tactical nuclear weapons (OP7).

First Committee, October 28: 115-3-38

UNGA: 120-3-42

First Committee comments: This resolution provoked a mixed reaction. The United States, together with the United Kingdom and France, voted against the resolution. They argued that they were "fully committed" to tackling the question of reductions in non-strategic nuclear weapons, but claimed that it was up to each state to decide how to implement to steps undertaken in 2000. Moreover, they felt that the resolution failed to take into account other approaches than the multilateral and did not adequately acknowledge steps already taken and efforts already underway. The Russian Federation further claimed that a number of steps in the resolution were premature. Complaining that the resolution failed to make explicit the steps required for the reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons, US allies, NATO states and NATO wannabes refused to commit to the resolution

UNGA 57/59 (L.3/Rev.1)
Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: the Need for a New Agenda

Introduced by Ireland on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition

This detailed resolution raises concern that there have been "few advances" to date in implementing the consensus agreements of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. It highlights point by point the measures which ought to be pursued in order to fulfil the Thirteen Steps enshrined in the NPT agreements. It cites the opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the legality and use of nuclear weapons and underscores the importance of the NWS' unequivocal undertaking to eliminate nuclear arsenals. Reference is made to the Moscow Treaty and the need to avoid conflating nuclear de-escalation with disarmament. Concerns are raised about the emergence of a "broader role" for nuclear weapons that could provide rationalisations for nuclear weapon use and lead to the development of new nuclear weapons. Special mention is given to upholding the testing moratoria, entry into force of the CTBT and the formalisation and implementation of the 1991 Bush-Gorbachev declarations on reducing non-strategic nuclear weapons. In addition to describing a range of specific disarmament and non-proliferation steps and measures, the resolution emphasises that these should be pursued according to the principles of transparency, irreversibility and accountability, with mention of regular reporting from states as part of the NPT review process. A significant new emphasis is given to concern that missile defences could potentially lead to the weaponisation of space as well as risking a new arms race on earth.

First Committee, October 25: 118-7-38

UNGA: 125-6-36

First Committee comments: Given the broad scope of this resolution, it is hardly surprising that it caused controversy. The opposition, however, boiled down to the unholy alliance of three of the Western NWS - Britain, France and the United States - together with the three non-NPT nuclear weapon possessors, India, Israel and Pakistan. While it was clear that such governments were unlikely to be won over by any resolution that backed nuclear disarmament and the NPT so clearly and concretely, it appeared from the explanations of those (mainly US allies) who abstained that they objected to the resolution's comprehensiveness and the fact that in places it provided updated or more specific demands relating to the NPT 2000 agreements. Addressing some of the stated concerns, a revised version of the resolution was issued following modifications to the language of PP5, referring to the ICJ decision, and OP11, clarifying the urgency of the entry into force of the CTBT. Both the Russian Federation and the United States had particular problems with OP12, which called for reduction in tactical nuclear weapons, saying that they were premature. PP16, too, caused the NWS some displeasure by noting that "there is no sign of efforts involving all of the five nuclear weapon states in the process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons." US and Russian allies generally abstained, saying that they agreed with its goals, but considered the resolution to be too ambitious, and that progress must be "gradual" and "realistic". Nonetheless, the resolution commanded wide support and one NATO member - Canada - voted in its favour.

UNGA 57/68 (L.23/Rev.1)
Bilateral Strategic Nuclear Arms Reductions and the New Strategic Framework

Introduced by the United States and co-sponsored by the Russian Federation

In the wake of the May 2002 agreement on the Moscow Treaty, this resolution identifies and welcomes the progress made by the United States and the Russian Federation. It states the belief the such reductions represent an advance of the commitment of both NWS under Article VI of the NPT. It also makes reference to the role to be played by the G-8 in enhancing international security and safety as a consequence of the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, launched in June 2002. Invites both the United States and the Russian Federation to keep others informed of their respective strategic offensive reductions.

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Although adopted without a vote, the resolution inspired some questions and negative comment. The first draft of the resolution had, in OP5, called upon all countries to join the G-8 commitment to non-proliferation principles - language regarded by some to be too strong. This was therefore softened to simply "inviting" all countries, "as appropriate," to do so. Nonetheless, several states found it necessary to articulate their positions before the vote. Most commonly, there was concern regarding the mention of Article VI and a determination to make clear that such reductions, while welcome, must not take the place of genuine disarmament negotiations between involving the five NWS. The New Agenda Coalition stated that while the reductions clearly represented a positive step forward, reductions in deployment and operational status did not constitute a substitute for irreversible disarmament.

UNGA 57/71 (L.32)
Missiles

Introduced by Iran

Introduced for the fourth year, this resolution seeks to address growing concerns regarding the proliferation of missiles and missile technology. The resolution expresses support for efforts against the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and makes note of the establishment (requested in earlier resolutions) of a UN Panel of Governmental Experts last year and its subsequent report. It then requests the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a panel of governmental experts, to further explore the issue of missiles.

First Committee, October 23: 90-2-57

UNGA: 104-3-60

First Committee comments: The resolution was opposed by Israel and the United States. Prior to the vote the Russian Federation noted its traditional support for this resolution and its proposal of a Global Control System to monitor the non-proliferation of missiles and related technology. The report by the expert group was welcomed by many, and Denmark, speaking on behalf of the EU and associated states (as current holder of the EU Presidency), asserted that the final text of the International Code of Conduct (ICoC) stood as the most concrete effort in the fight against missile proliferation. Several states expressed concern about the failure of the resolution to make specific mention of the threat of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and related technology or, indeed, to refer to the ICoC. Following the vote, the United States claimed that there was insufficient consensus on this issue to justify further study by the UN.

UNGA 57/78 (L.42)
A Path to the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

Introduced by Japan and co-sponsored by Australia as well Papua New Guinea and Nicaragua

This resolution reaffirms the crucial importance of the NPT as the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and includes a paraphrased (and in places updated) listing of the Thirteen Steps on nuclear disarmament agreed in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference (OP3). Surprising some sceptics by defying current US positions, the resolution welcomes the continuation of the moratorium on nuclear testing and reaffirms the importance of "early" entry into force of the CTBT. Going beyond the agreement obtainable in May 2000 (due mainly to China's opposition), the resolution calls for a fissban to be concluded within five years, and for observance of a moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons pending this hoped-for treaty's entry into force. It also stresses the need for, and importance of, a successful outcome of the 2005 NPT Review Conference and calls upon all states to maintain standards of physical protection of nuclear materials and technology.

First Committee, October 23: 136-2-13

UNGA: 156-2-13

First Committee comments: One of the main points of divergence between the NAC and the sponsors of this resolution lay in OP3e, which paraphrased the "unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states, as agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties to the NPT are committed under article VI". Ireland, speaking before the vote on behalf of the NAC (who all abstained), raised concerns that the resolution's placement and paraphrasing of key undertakings - especially OP3e - implied that the commitments had yet to be undertaken, and that this represented a fundamental misinterpretation of the outcome of the 2000 Review Conference. The United States and India, however, were the only two states actively to vote against the resolution. China, abstaining, expressed its disappointment in Japan's failure to mention the "special responsibility" borne by the two largest NWS, though most considered that China's abstention was principally due to the resolution's emphasis on a fissile material production moratorium pending achievement of a negotiated fissban treaty. The United States explained its negative vote as a product of its discontent with the language dealing with the CTBT, while India spoke of the need to move beyond the framework of the NPT. The resolution, it claimed, was based on "NPT philosophy" which made it impossible for India to support.

UNGA 57/79 (L.43)
Nuclear disarmament

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

This traditional resolution on nuclear disarmament reaffirms the commitment of the international community to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It notes and welcomes the signing of the Moscow Treaty and the utility of unilateral, bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral measures for nuclear arms limitations. As with many other resolutions, it makes note of the danger of the use of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist acts and the need to prevent such an eventuality. Urges NWS to de-alert and de-activate their nuclear weapons and undertake a step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat. After expressing regret at the failure of the CD to establish an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament, urges it to do so early in 2003.

First Committee, October 23: A separate vote was requested on OP10 which made reference to the 2000 NPT Review Conference and calls for the "full and effective implementation of the steps set out in the Final Document."

OP10: 139-2-8

Whole resolution: 91-40-19

UNGA whole resolution: 107-41-21

OP10: 160-2-5

First Committee comments: As non-members of the NPT, India and Israel voted against the language of OP10, which reiterated the unequivocal undertaking to eliminate nuclear arsenals and called for the "full and effective" implementation of the Thirteen Steps of the 2000 NPT Final Document. Many non-NAM (and a few NAM) states considered the language of the resolution too ambitious. Japan, for example, noted the need for such a resolution to be "progressive and realistic." This position was generally shared among the Western states even if they agreed with the ultimate goal of the resolution itself. Most NATO and allied states voted against while others abstained.

UNGA 57/80 (L.44)
The Conference on Disarmament Decision (CD/1547) of 11 August 1998 to Establish, Under Item 1 of its Agenda Entitled "Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament", an Ad Hoc Committee to Negotiate, on the Basis of the Report of the Special Coordinator (CD/1299) and the Mandate Contained Therein, a Non-Discriminatory, Multilateral and International and Effectively Verifiable Treaty Banning the Production of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons or Other Nuclear Explosive Devices [FISSBAN]

Introduced by Canada with co-sponsorship of a wide cross-group of states

Speaks of the necessity of a treaty banning the production of fissile material in contributing to nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. Recalls the decision of the CD to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate such a treaty and urges it to establish a programme of work to enable fissban negotiations to commence.

First Committee, October 21: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: After the vote, Israel claimed that it had voted in favour of the resolution due to its support of a cut-off measure, but noted that the negotiation of such a treaty cannot be separated from the Middle East peace process.

UNGA 57/84 (L.52)
Reducing Nuclear Danger

Introduced by India with co-sponsorship from sixteen NAM states

Based on the assumption that nuclear weapons and nuclear war constitute the most serious threat to humankind, this resolution focuses on de-alerting and the adoption of measures to prevent accidents arising from computer or other technical malfunctions so that such danger may be reduced. It also calls for a review of nuclear doctrines by the five NWS and for all member states to work to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote nuclear disarmament. It takes note of the Secretary-General's Millennium Declaration and calls for the intensification of efforts to implement this and related recommendations.

First Committee, October 21: 96-45-15

UNGA: 107-46-17

First Committee comments: This resolution - which purported to address de-alerting and nuclear doctrines -divided states largely along traditional NAM/Western lines, mainly because of suspicion associated with India's motivations, following its self-declaration as a "nuclear weapon state" in 1998.

UNGA 57/85 (L.53)
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 with co-sponsorship from over 50 NAM states

This resolution was first tabled in 1996, to build on the ICJ advisory opinion of that year (endorsed in OP1) and link it with a call for negotiations on a nuclear weapon convention (OP2). It recalls many international obligations, including the principles and objectives adopted at the 1995 NPT Review Conference, the Thirteen Steps, the CTBT, and the various nuclear-weapons-free zones. It also notes the signing of the Moscow Treaty and urges its participants to take further steps towards the irreversible reduction of their nuclear arsenals. The central role of the CD as a multilateral negotiating forum for nuclear disarmament is also highlighted.

First Committee, October 21: A separate vote was requested on OP1.

OP1: 146-5-5

Whole resolution: 106-30-22

UNGA whole resolution: 117-30-24

OP 1: 161-4-1

First Committee comments: Opponents complained that the call for a nuclear weapon convention was external to the focus of the resolution. A separate vote was called on OP1 to allow supporters of the ICJ opinion to vote in favour of its endorsement, without supporting the main thrust of this resolution, which was to call for negotiations on a convention to prohibit and eliminate all nuclear weapons. Japan, abstaining on the whole resolution, noted after both votes that while it supported the ICJ opinion, it was nonetheless premature to use the resolution to call upon states to negotiate a disarmament treaty. Belgium, speaking on behalf of several Western European states highlighted the need for resolutions in this area to be realistic and recognise that nuclear disarmament would be achieved through a step-by-step process. The United States, Israel, France, Afghanistan and the Russian Federation opposed on both votes.

UNGA 57/94 (L.51)
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Introduced by India with the co-sponsorship of thirty NAM states

Maintains the need for a multilateral, universal and binding agreement prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in order to contribute to the total elimination of nuclear threats. The resolution makes note of the positive step represented by the signing of the Moscow Treaty and expresses the determination to achieve "an international convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons, leading to their ultimate destruction." It regrets the continuing failure of the CD to undertake such negotiations as called for in the corresponding resolution of 2001 and requests it to begin such negotiations this year and report the results to the General Assembly.

First Committee, October 21: 98-45-9

UNGA: 110-45-12

First Committee comments: Voting divided along traditional NAM and Western lines. Western states and a handful of NAM states regarded this resolution as being too unrealistic and polemical to command their support. India's introduction of the draft provoked comment, even from states which broadly support its goals, regarding the need for such matters to progress more incrementally in order to have any real hope of success.

UNGA 57/100 (L.4/Rev.1)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Introduced by Mexico with wide cross-group co-sponsorship

As in the resolution of 2000, this text seeks to underline the continuing importance of the CTBT and urgency of its entry into force. It notes that there remain thirteen states whose ratification is needed for this to take place and makes mention, in PP6, of the November 2001 Final Declaration of the Conference on Measures to Facilitate the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (Article XIV Conference). In addition to calling for the ratification of the CTBT, the resolution urges all states to maintain their existing moratoria and not to resume nuclear testing.

First Committee, October 21: 125-1-4

UNGA: 164-1-5

First Committee comments: Although this resolution received overwhelming support - as in the past - objectors remained. India, whose objections to the CTBT are well known, abstained, as did Syria, which said that the resolution unjustifiably overlooked the fact of those NNWS who have received no guarantees against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and expressed further concern at the lack of assurance in the resolution regarding the previous and potential denial of nuclear technology for "peaceful" uses The decision of Colombia to abstain came as something of a surprise. The United States was the only country to cast a negative vote against the resolution, declaring that while it intends to maintain its self-imposed moratorium of nuclear testing, it does not support the CTBT.

L.19 (DRAFT DECISION)
United Nations Conference to Identify Ways of Eliminating Nuclear Dangers in the Context of Nuclear Disarmament

Introduced by Mexico

This draft decision seeks the inclusion, in the agenda of the 58th session of the General Assembly, of an item entitled "United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General's Millennium Declaration of 2000. A recorded vote was requested.

First Committee, October 21: 111-7-37

UNGA: 121-6-37

First Committee comments: The draft decision's goal of a conference on eliminating nuclear dangers was met with objections that its establishment could usurp the CD and the ongoing NPT process. Germany, which voted against, observed that while it sympathised with the sense of urgency and disappointment with the slow pace of progress on reducing nuclear dangers, the NPT context for disarmament was of greater importance, as was the need to overcome the deadlock in the CD - the body through which a fissban treaty could be negotiated. Such sentiments were shared by France which, speaking on behalf of the United States and the United Kingdom, expressed concern that a parallel process to the NPT would be in conflict with it and would therefore not contribute to disarmament.

Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones

UNGA 57/55 (L.28)
Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East

Introduced by Egypt

This traditional resolution cites the need for the establishment of a Middle Eastern nuclear-weapons-free zone, while at the same time reaffirming the right of states to develop and acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It invites all countries of the region to declare their support for establishing such a zone.

First Committee, October 21: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/67 (L.21/Rev.1)
Mongolia's International Security and Nuclear-Weapon-Free Status

Introduced by Mongolia

Mongolia's resolution regarding its proposed status as a nuclear-weapon-free zone was last introduced in 2000. It takes note of the Secretary-General's report in response to that resolution and the efforts towards its implementation. The first draft of this year's resolution initially welcomed efforts made by member states to cooperate with Mongolia in this regard. This was subsequently altered to welcome the consultations of the five NWS on measures to institutionalise this status.

First Committee, October 28: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: The consensus adoption of this resolution was accompanied by a brief statement from India, which noted its pleasure at the support Mongolia had received for this aim and professed its own willingness to provide support.

UNGA 57/69 (L.24/Rev.1)
Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia

Introduced by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

Having been presented in the form of a decision in 2001, the resolution this year made its usual assertion of the role of a Central Asian NWFZ in heightening security. It also took note of the recent declaration - taken in the days immediately before the start of the First Committee - of the elaboration of a draft treaty and protocol for the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: The elaboration of the draft treaty for a Central Asian NWFZ was one of the events mentioned, and universally welcomed, by almost every delegation. India, however, reiterated its standard line that any NWFZ must be freely arrived at by the states involved.

UNGA 57/73 (L.34)
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere and Adjacent Areas

Introduced by Brazil with the co-sponsorship of a wide cross-group of states in the southern hemisphere

With the announcement by Cuba of its decision to accede to the NPT and the Treaty of Tlatelolco, there was a palpable air of optimism and satisfaction surrounding this resolution. It calls for the ratification of all nuclear-weapons-free zone treaties and expresses its conviction regarding "the important role of NWFZ in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime." In OP3, the resolution makes reference to the need for all states to consider all relevant proposals to this end, "including those reflected in its resolution on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia."

First Committee, October 21: Separate votes were taken on OP3, and the last three words of OP3 (..."and South Asia.")

OP3 (last three words of): 141-2-8

OP3: 145-1-8

Resolution as a whole: 148-3-4

UNGA whole resolution: 160-3-5

OP3 (last three words of): 151-2-8

OP3: 156-1-8

First Committee comments: Unsurprisingly, and as in previous years, the specific mention of the need for a NWFZ in South Asia was objected to by India and Pakistan (who voted against the last three words of OP3). Calls for a NWFZ in the Middle East were assumed to contribute to abstentions by Israel, the US, UK, France and the Russian Federation on both votes relating to OP3. Pakistan professed itself "perplexed" by the call for a NWFZ in South Asia in the text of a resolution focusing on the southern hemisphere. India, for its part, declared that this aspect of the resolution ran counter to the established notion that NWFZ must be freely arrived at by the states concerned. Also as in previous years, the United States - speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom and France - referred to the "fundamental ambiguity" of the resolution. Specifically, it expressed concern that, since the southern hemisphere land mass is already covered by NWFZ, the resolution is a way of extending this nuclear-weapon-free status to the high seas - a step which these NWS oppose.

UNGA 57/97 (L.27)
The Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East

Introduced by Egypt on behalf of the League of Arab States

This resolution seeks to highlight the threat posed by nuclear weapons proliferation to the peace and security of the Middle East. It stresses the need, in PP6, for universality of the NPT and recalled the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT. It also notes that Israel is now the only state in the region that remains outside the NPT and, in OP2, reaffirmed "the importance of Israel's accession" to the NPT and (in OP3) calls upon Israel "to accede...without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons."

First Committee, October 25: A separate vote was taken on PP6, which calls for the universalisation of the NPT and calls upon those states remaining outside the treaty to accede to it and accept the appropriate IAEA safeguards.

PP6: 153-2-5

Resolution as a whole: 150-4-9

UNGA whole resolution: 158-3-8

PP6: 163-2-2

First Committee comments: PP6, calling for universalisation of the NPT, met with particular objections from Israel and India, who voted against it in a separate vote. As in the past, the resolution's singling out of Israel met with objections from Israel, the United States, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, which voted against it. Both Israel and the United States asserted that the resolution was "a one-sided initiative" which failed to mention that Israel was not the only state in the Middle East which had sought or was seeking nuclear capability (in reference to this, the United States targeted Iraq and Iran). Canada, while declaring its support for the universalisation of the NPT, was disappointed that the resolution spoke only of adherence to the NPT, instead of also highlighting the need for compliance. Israel declared that the real risk of nuclear proliferation came from cheating "non-nuclear" NPT signatories.

Other Weapons of Mass Destruction

UNGA 57/50 (L.5)
Prohibition of the Development and Manufacture of New Types of Weapons of Mass Destruction and New Systems of Such Weapons

Introduced by Belarus

This resolution is traditionally introduced every few years and expresses the determination to prevent the emergence of new types of weapons of mass destruction. It refers to the need for effective measures to be taken to prevent such an eventuality and refers the matter to the CD for appropriate recommendations.

First Committee, October 22: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/62 (L.9)
Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of the NAM

Seeks to reassert the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol within the context of progress towards general and complete disarmament. The resolution welcomes the decision by some states to withdraw their reservations to the Protocol and calls upon the remaining others to do the same. The resolution also requests that the Secretary-General submit a report regarding its implementation at the 59th session of the General Assembly.

First Committee, October 22: 140-0-2

UNGA: 164-0-3

First Committee comments: As in past years, Israel and the United States abstained. However, the Republic of Korea, which has traditionally abstained, this time voted in favour of the resolution, citing the removal of their objections to that part of the resolution dealing with biological weapons.

UNGA 57/82 (L.48)
Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction [CWC]

Introduced by Poland and co-sponsored by Canada

This resolution once again seeks to underline the importance of the CWC and welcomes the growth in its membership over the past year. Calls upon those states who remain outside the Convention to accede to it and stresses the importance of the OPCW in verifying compliance with the terms of the CWC. It also makes note of the need for all possessors of chemical weapons and related development and production facilities to join the CWC. Welcomes the continuing cooperation between the UN and the OPCW.

First Committee, October 22: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: The only state to speak at the time of adopting this resolution was Israel, which noted that although it had signed the CWC in January 1993, other states in the region had failed to do the same, and would continue to refuse even if Israel were to ratify the Convention.

L.22 (DRAFT DECISION)
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction [BWC]

Introduced by Hungary

As last year, and to the disappointment of many, the traditional draft resolution on biological weapons was downgraded to a draft decision. The decision requests that the Secretary-General continue to render assistance to depositary governments of the BWC and to provide assistance towards its implementation, as well as the implementation of the decisions of previous Review Conferences.

First Committee, October 22: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: The decision was put forward a few weeks prior to the reconvening of the suspended 2001 BWC Review Conference and reflected the general lack of optimism regarding any progress in this area, due to the determined opposition of the Bush Administration. The continued demotion of the issue in the First Committee from resolution to decision was noted by the delegation of Cuba, who nonetheless expressed the belief that this did not indicate a lessening of the importance attached by most members of the Committee to the BWC.

Arms Race in Outer Space

UNGA 57/57 (L.30)
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space

Introduced by Egypt with support from China and the Russian Federation and several NAM states.

With the deadlock in the CD, this forum's ability to negotiate or discuss PAROS is also stalled. Egypt's resolution emphasises the "complementary nature of bilateral and multilateral agreements" in this area and asserted that the growing use of outer space had increased the need for greater transparency and information within the international community. It makes note of the fact that the legal regime applicable to outer space does not, as it currently stands, guarantee the prevention of an arms race in outer space and thus needs to be reinforced and expanded. The resolution calls upon all states to contribute to these objectives and, in particular, calls upon those states with activities in outer space to keep the CD informed of the progress of any bilateral and multilateral negotiations.

First Committee, October 22: 151-0-2

UNGA: 159-0-3

First Committee comments: China was one of the few states to devote a significant part of its general statement to this issue. Prior to the vote, the Russian Federation noted that, while no offensive weapons are in outer space as yet, plans to do so are already being made, and thus the issue should take pride of place on the disarmament agenda. Speaking after the vote, on behalf of the EU and associated states, Denmark noted that the CD stood as the only multilateral negotiating forum for work in this area and that any PAROS negotiations should take place within this context. The United States and Israel both abstained on the vote.

Conventional Arms

UNGA 57/66 (L.18/Rev.1)
National Legislation on Transfer of Arms, Military Equipment and Dual Use Goods and Technology

Introduced by the Netherlands

This resolution, which builds on the Netherlands' traditional role in supporting the UN Conventional Arms Register, was presented for a vote for the first time after being withdrawn last year. It recognises the importance of disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation in the maintenance of international peace and security, and recalls previous international commitments to this end. It also seeks to reassert the importance of national legislation, regulations and procedures on the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual use goods and technology as a confidence-building measure. The resolution encourages states to exchange information, and enact or improve their own national legislation in this arena and provide relevant information to the Secretary-General. There was a separate vote held on PP2, which recalls that the states parties to international disarmament and non-proliferation treaties had undertaken "inter alia, both to control transfers that could contribute to proliferation activities and to facilitate the fullest possible exchange of materials, equipment and technological information for peaceful purposes."

First Committee, October 25:

PP2: 117-0-31

Whole resolution: 160-0-0

UNGA whole resolution: 166-0-0

PP2: 131-0-27

First Committee comments: The Netherlands was commended for this new initiative, which was unanimously adopted even after a separate vote was called on PP2, which some NAM states abstained on. Sharing the concerns of the Arab states and a handful of others, Iran said that PP2 was not based on any previous documents and, in effect, might create a precedent with regard to export controls. The initial draft of the resolution provoked some objections for placing too heavy an emphasis on the exchange of information without emphasising that this should be voluntary. This was rectified in the revised draft, where PP7 encouraged member states to provide information "on a voluntary basis." In addition, the revised draft reaffirmed the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence in accordance with article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Canada stated that it was happy with PP2, but noted the need both to control transfers to prevent proliferation, while continuing to facilitate peaceful use. Despite the noted abstentions on PP2, there was widespread support for the thrust of the resolution as a whole, which was adopted without any dissenting votes.

UNGA 57/70 (L.25)
Assistance to States for Curbing the Illicit Traffic in Small Arms and Collecting Them

Introduced by Mali and co-sponsored by many African states as well as several European states and Canada

This resolution takes note of the threat posed to development and security by the illicit proliferation, circulation and traffic in small arms, most particularly in the states of the Sahelo-Saharan subregion. It welcomes the progress made in this area, including the 2000 Bamako Declaration on an African Position on the Illicit Proliferation, Circulation and Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons, the 2001 Programme of Action of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, and, most recently, the conclusion of the African Conference on the implementation of the Programme of Action in March 2002. The resolution invites the Secretary-General and states and organisations to provide assistance in curbing the proliferation of, and collecting, small arms.

First Committee, October 22: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/72 (L.33/Rev.1)
The Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light weapons in All its Aspects

Introduced by Japan with wide cross-group co-sponsorship

This resolution expresses its support for the implementation of the 2001 Programme of Action and decides to convene the first biennial meeting of states in July 2003 in New York. It encourages initiatives to mobilise resources and expertise in order to facilitate the implementation of the Programme of Action and welcomes the convening of the Group of Governmental Experts assisting the Secretary-General in developing the instruments allowing for the identification and tracing of illicit small arms and light weapons.

First Committee, October 22: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/74 (L.36)
Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction [Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty]

Introduced by Belgium with the co-sponsorship of a wide cross-group of over 100 states

The resolution, introduced for the fourth time, welcomes the entry intro force of the Mine Ban Treaty and recalls the first, second, third and recently fourth meetings of states parties, reaffirming the commitment of the states parties to further intensify their efforts in all areas covered by the Convention. It invites all states which remain outside the Convention to accede to it without delay and all those who have signed by not ratified to do so. It further invites and encourages "all interested states, the United Nations, other relevant international organisation or institutions, regional organisations the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and relevant non-governmental organizations" to participate in the programme of intersessional work established at the First Meeting. It requests that preparations be made for the convening of the Fifth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention in September 2003.

First Committee, October 23: 128-0-20

UNGA: 143-0-23

First Committee comments: Several states noted that while they shared the resolution's concerns regarding anti-personnel landmines (APL), their particular security situation prevented them from acceding to the Treaty. India, for example, identified the need to address such concerns and to identify viable alternatives to APL. Pakistan declared that it was merely the "irresponsible use" of landmines that had caused problems and declared the weapons to be a necessary and natural reflection of its security concerns. Such sentiments were also reflected by South Korea and Myanmar (Burma), while Lebanon took the opportunity to point out its problems with APL that had been left behind by Israel.

UNGA 57/77 (L.41)
Conventional Arms Control at the Regional and Subregional Levels

Introduced by Pakistan with co-sponsorship from Bangladesh, Belarus, Germany, Italy, Nepal, Peru and Ukraine

Recognises the role of conventional arms control in promoting regional peace and security and notes the particular responsibility in this area held by "militarily significant" states. The resolution requests the CD to consider the formulation of principles that can serve as a framework for regional agreements and requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of member states on the subject.

First Committee, October 22: 149-1-1

UNGA: 165-1-1

First Committee comments: India was the only state voting against the resolution, declaring that the CD was not the forum in which to be dealing with regional arrangements. It further noted that its concerns were not confined to South Asia, but went beyond it. Bhutan, a satellite of India, abstained.

UNGA 57/98 (L.46)
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 wide cross-group sponsorship

As last year, this resolution supports the CCW and its Protocols, as well as the decision by the Second Review Conference in December 2001 to extend the scope of the CCW to include "armed conflicts of a non-international character", i.e. civil wars and intra-state uses.. The resolution calls upon all states who remain outside the CCW to becomes parties as soon as possible and to express their consent to be bound by the Protocols of the Convention. Also requests the Secretary-General to render any necessary assistance as may be required for the meeting of CCW states parties on December 12-13 2002, for follow-up work, as decided by the Second Review Conference.

First Committee, October 28: consensus

UNGA: consensus

Regional Disarmament

UNGA 57/76 (L.39)
Regional Disarmament

Introduced by Pakistan with co-sponsorship from Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Turkey

This customary resolution takes note of recent proposals for disarmament at both the regional and subregional levels and maintains the need for efforts to promote regional disarmament to incorporate the specific characteristics and requirements of each region. Asserts that efforts towards disarmament must be taken both regionally and globally and welcomes initiatives already taken. The resolution supports and encourages efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at various levels as well as easing regional tensions.

First Committee, October 22: consensus

UNGA: consensus

Confidence-Building Measures

UNGA 57/75 (L.37)
Transparency in Armaments

Introduced by the Netherlands with the co-sponsorship of a wide cross-group of over 100 states

Seeks to emphasise the need for an enhanced level of transparency in armaments and welcomes the consolidated report of the Secretary-General on the UN Register on Conventional Arms. Calls for universal participation and for those in a position to do so to provide additional information on procurement from national production and military holdings. In OP4b, it requests the Secretary-General to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development and in OP6 invites the CD to continue its work in this regard.

First Committee, October 23: Separate votes were taken on OP4b and OP6

OP4b: 134-2-17

OP6: 134-0-20

Whole resolution: 132-0-23

UNGA whole resolution: 143-0-23

OP4b: 140-2-20

OP6: 139-0-23

First Committee comments: Various NAM states expressed disappointment that the resolution made no specific mention of weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless it was felt that transparency in armaments was a confidence-building measure of great importance. Some states (notably, Myanmar (Burma) and Pakistan) expressed scepticism regarding the need - as specified in OP4b - for the Secretary-General to prepare a report on this issue, which they said was premature. Some 20 (mainly Arab states and China) also registered their lack of support for the CD to work further on this issue. China noted that Taiwan's failure to comply with the Register meant that it was unable to resume its own participation.

UNGA 57/86 (L.54)
Compliance with Arms Limitations and Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Measures

Introduced by the United States

The focus of this revived resolution was on the need to underscore the importance of full implementation and strict observance of agreements and other agreed obligations on arms limitation, disarmament and non-proliferation to which states may be party, and that violations thereof adversely affect international security and generally weaken the credibility of international agreements. The resolution notes the importance of the role played by the UN with respect to compliance and in restoring the integrity of such agreements. It calls upon member states to "to give serious consideration to the implications that non-compliance by states parties with any provisions of agreements in the fields of arms limitation and disarmament and non-proliferation have for international security and stability." It further notes the contribution of effective verification procedures in enhancing confidence in this area.

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: In many ways, this resolution served to reify some of the concerns which have been growing in the First Committee regarding some deep differences in the approaches of states to the issues raised. Despite the consensus adoption of this resolution, some of its language caused serious concern. When last introduced, in 1997, the resolution called for a program of future work - a reference which was absent on this occasion. As a consequence, New Zealand, which had in the past co-sponsored this resolution, found itself unable to do so this time. Brazil likewise expressed its concerns with the resolution's new language after its five year absence, believing that it reduced the scope of compliance and respect for international norms. Both states felt that the language on verification in OP6 did not go far enough in highlighting the role it plays in confidence-building and in assessing compliance. There was, however, general relief that the resolution, in both the preambular and operative paragraphs, highlighted the effectiveness and utility of the UN. Mexico, speaking before the vote, asserted its own conviction in the need for redoubled efforts in the multilateral arena.

UNGA 57/88 (L.15)
Regional Confidence-Building Measures: Activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa

Introduced by Central African Republic with co-sponsorship from the other Central African states

The resolution generally supports the work of the Standing Committee, especially in the context of regional and subregional conflict. It notes the importance of the Standing Committee in the promotion of confidence-building measures to reduce such conflicts. It requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary support for the Committee and for the establishment of a network of parliamentarians with a view to the creation of a subregional parliament in Central Africa. A paragraph requesting the Secretary-General and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to provide their full assistance for the proper functioning of the Subregional Centre - deleted in 2001 - was included again this year.

First Committee, October 28: consensus

UNGA: consensus

Disarmament Machinery

UNGA 57/61 (L.8/Rev.1)
Convening of the Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament [UNSSOD IV]

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of the NAM

As previously, this resolution expresses the conviction that a special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament "can set the future course of action in the field of disarmament, arms control and related international security issues." It further emphasises the importance of multilateralism in this area and takes notes of the recent Secretary-General's report on the views of member states regarding the convening of the proposed special session. Having dropped all references to a date for convening the Special Session, which in many past years provoked disagreement, it achieved consensus - but only as an expression of aspiration without any teeth.

First Committee, October 28: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/87 (L.11)
United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament

Introduced by South Africa on behalf on NAM

Recognises the importance of the regional context in progress towards peace and disarmament, in particular the role of education, and the need to revitalise the three Regional Centres in Nepal, Peru and Togo. Calls upon the support of member states as well as NGOs and the UN. Requests the Secretary-General to provide all necessary support - within existing resources - to these three centres.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/89 (L.16)
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin American and the Caribbean

Introduced by Trinidad and Tobago

This resolution once again expresses its support for the Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Peru. In the wake of recent events, the resolution welcomes the decision of the Government of Cuba to join the NPT and ratify the Treaty of Tlatelolco. In addition, it welcomes the creation of the South American Zone of Peace and Cooperation, declared on July 27, 2002.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/91 (L.29)
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa

Introduced by Egypt on behalf of the Group of African states

Yet another traditional resolution, it makes note of the widespread support for the revitalisation of the African Regional Centre and appeals to states, international governmental organisations, NGOs and Foundations to make voluntary contributions in order to strengthen its programmes and activities. It calls for cooperation between the Regional Centre and the African Union, and emphasises the importance of its work in promoting the consistent implementation of the Programme of Action to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in SALW.

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/92 (L.35)
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific

Introduced by Nepal with co-sponsorship from states in the region

The resolution welcomes the report of the Secretary-General regarding the continuing validity of the Regional Centre's mandate. It also welcomes the idea of the possible creation of an educational and training programme for peace and disarmament in Asia and the Pacific. The resolution seeks to underline the importance of the Kathmandu process and, as in other resolutions dealing with Regional Centres, appeals to member states, international governmental and non-governmental organisations as well as foundations, to make voluntary contributions to support the work of the Regional Centre. It also urges the Secretary-General to ensure "the physical operation of the Regional Centre from Kathmandu within six months of the date of signature of the host country agreement."

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/93 (L.38)
United Nations Disarmament Fellowship Training and Advisory Services

Introduced by Nigeria with co-sponsorship from a wide cross-group of over 50 states

Notes the contribution made by the Fellowship Programme to developing greater awareness of the importance and benefits of disarmament and recognises the need for member states to take into account gender equality when nominating candidates. The resolution expresses particular appreciation to Germany for hosting participants of the programme since 1980, as well as Japan, the IAEA, OPCW, the CTBTO Preparatory Commission and the Monterey Institute of International Studies. It requests the Secretary-General to continue to implement the Geneva-based programme within existing resources.

First Committee, October 22: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/95 (L.6)
Report of the Disarmament Commission

Introduced by Italy

Reaffirms the importance of the UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) and the necessity of continued engagement between this body, the First Committee and the CD. Requests that the UNDC meet in 2003 to consider "ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament" as well as "practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms."

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/96 (L.13)
Report of the Conference on Disarmament

Introduced by Hungary (as current President of the CD)

As the stagnation in the CD continues, concern over the future of this multilateral negotiating forum is growing more profound. In response to these increasing concerns, this resolution reaffirms the Conference on Disarmament as "the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community" and recalls that it still had a number of important issues to be negotiated.

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Increasing concern over whether the CD will ever reach agreement on a programme of work was shared by nearly all the delegations. Germany took the opportunity to underline its "deep disappointment and concern" with the current deadlock in the CD, especially in light of the growing likelihood of terrorist acquisition of WMD. In general statements, several lamented the fact that negotiations for a fissban are also held hostage to the CD stalemate, while Chile took the opportunity before the vote, to stress the CD's importance and express its concern over the continuing lack of progress in this arena.

Other Disarmament Measures

UNGA 57/52 (L.47/Rev.1)
Maintenance of International Security - Good Neighbourliness, Stability and Development in South-Eastern Europe

Introduced by the Former Yugoslav Republic Macedonia with co-sponsorship of states in the region, as well as Iceland and the United States

This resolution expresses its conviction regarding the necessity of regional conflict prevention, relating this to the United Nations. Reiterates the importance of the South-East European Cooperation Process and the simultaneous need to strengthen regional efforts on arms control, demining, disarmament and confidence-building measures. It notes the effectiveness of the UN and the Kosovo Force in Kosovo, welcomes increasing goodwill between the South-Eastern European states and the European Union, and makes particular mention of the problem of anti-personnel landmines in the region and the need to take action against the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons.

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/53 (L.1)
Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security

Introduced by the Russian Federation

Introduced for the fifth year, the resolution expresses concern regarding the misuse and exploitation of information resources and technologies and calls on member states to consider these threats, as well as examining "relevant international concepts aimed at strengthening the security of global information and telecommunications systems". Notes the need for the encouragement of civilian technology while working to prevent the use of such information and technology by terrorist groups or criminals and calls upon member states to promote multilateral dialogue regarding such threats.

First Committee, October 28: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/54 (L.50)
Role of Science and Technology in the Context of International Security and Disarmament

Introduced by India with co-sponsorship of thirty NAM states

The resolution highlights both the civilian and military potential of scientific and technological developments and stresses the importance of encouraging civilian applications. Though it acknowledges the role of dual-use items in the development and upgrading of weapons of mass destruction, the resolution mainly reflects the concerns of a number of NAM states regarding export control regimes and the perceived cartel of states who participate in them, with emphasis on a perceived threat to the right of others to peaceful development. Declares that the benefits of advances in the civilian sphere should be available to all and urges member states to undertake multilateral negotiations towards this end, with the encouragement of the relevant United Nations bodies.

First Committee, October 23: 93-46-18

UNGA: 90-48-21

First Committee comments: As in previous years, the vote was split largely along NAM and enlarged Western caucus lines, with the latter complaining that the resolution was biased against the international system of export controls, in which many of them participate. South Korea noted that it had changed its traditional abstention on this resolution to a negative vote as it believed that the resolution lacked balance in failing to acknowledge the contribution of export control regimes in thwarting proliferation.

UNGA 57/60 (L.7/Rev.2)
United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education

Introduced by Mexico with co-sponsorship from a wide cross-group of states

This resolution, related to the UN Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education, which launched its report on October 9, 2002. The study, the culmination of two years of consultations, contained 34 recommendations for actions to be undertaken by governments, educators, and civil society. The resolution welcomes the results of this study and conveys its recommendations for implementation. It further requests that a report be undertaken to assess the results of that implementation for the fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly.

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

First Committee comments: Although the study was generally welcomed, there were some concerns that in its first draft, PP4 limited the source of threats. This was addressed in further revisions, which noted the existence of "other challenges to international security and the process of disarmament" in addition to the need to focus on weapons of mass destruction, small arms and light weapons and (though some were not happy with the last reference) international terrorism. Despite the revisions, France commented that PP4 retained its selectivity and neglected, for example, to make specific reference to anti-personnel landmines, while placing an unnecessary emphasis on weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted by consensus.

UNGA 57/90 (L.20)
United Nations Disarmament Information Programme

Introduced by Mexico and co-sponsored by several South and Central American states as well as New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia

This resolution, which has been introduced every other year since 1996, expresses support for the UN Disarmament Information Programme (UNDIP) and recommends that it should maintain interaction with the public, NGOs and research institutes and focus its efforts on generating public understanding of the importance of multilateral action.

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/64 (L.12)
Observance of Environmental Norms in the Drafting and Implementation of Agreements on Disarmament and Arms Control

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of the NAM

As in years past, the resolution seeks to emphasise the need to observe environmental norms in both the preparation and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements and explicitly refers to the effects of nuclear weapons on the environment. It calls for negotiating parties to take environmental considerations into account, whether in a unilateral, bilateral, regional or multilateral context.

First Committee, October 23: 153-0-4

UNGA: 163-0-5

First Committee comments: As in past years, the United States, United Kingdom, France and Israel abstained, fearing that the resolution could be used in the future to hold them to account for damage arising from their production, testing and use of certain kinds of weapons, including nuclear weapons.

UNGA 57/65 (L.17)
Relationship between Disarmament and Development

Introduced by South Africa on behalf on the NAM

This traditional resolution seeks to underline the importance of the "symbiotic relationship" between disarmament and development, with particular reference to global military expenditure which reduces the amount available for development needs. Urges an increase in resources to be made available for the implementation of disarmament and arms limitation agreements and, in a departure from previous years, requests the establishment in 2003 of a group of governmental experts to assist the Secretary-General to prepare a report on this subject, for consideration at the 59th session of the General Assembly.

First Committee, October 28: 156-1-4

UNGA: 160-1-4

First Committee comments: Although the resolution recalled the Final Document of the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development of 1987, several states argued that this resolution differed markedly from that document. France, speaking before the vote, made particular mention of this, and observed that the "symbiotic relationship" between disarmament and development - as referred to in PP6 - failed to take security into account. In addition, there were concerns regarding the implied automatic link in OP5 between disarmament and savings in other arenas. The United States, which had previously allowed the resolution to pass by consensus by not participating in the vote, decided this year to vote against. After the vote was taken, the US expressed its conviction that disarmament and development were two distinct issues "that do not lend themselves to being linked." The new request for convening a group of governmental experts to prepare a report to be presented to the General Assembly two years hence also provoked objections. Germany expressed the hope that the report would take account of the multidimensional relationship between disarmament and development. The United Kingdom considered that such a report would be premature and would not allow the experts involved to appraise the situation "in anything other than general and possibly inconclusive terms", and was therefore unconvinced of the value of any such work at this time.

UNGA 57/81 (L.45)
Consolidation of Peace Through Practical Disarmament Measures

Introduced by Germany with co-sponsorship of a wide cross-group of over 100 states

The resolution has retained last year's references to small arms and light weapons. It asserts the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach towards certain practical disarmament measures. It notes the importance of the Secretary-General's report and its recommendations for the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures. It encourages member states to support requests by others regarding the collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons and welcomes the report of the United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education as well as the Secretary-General's 2002 report on the implementation of this resolution.

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

UNGA 57/99 (L.31)
Strengthening of Security and Cooperation in the Mediterranean region

Introduced by Algeria and co-sponsored by a wide cross-group of states in the Mediterranean region and in Europe

As last year, the resolution takes note of the "indivisible nature" of security in the Mediterranean and that the enhancement of cooperation among Mediterranean states created benefits in the form of economic and social development. It also asserts that the prospects for Euro-Mediterranean cooperation would be enhanced by positive developments in Europe, the Maghreb and in the Middle East. It continues to make note of the need for such states to cooperate in combating terrorism, crime, illicit arms transfers and drug trafficking and requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the means to strengthen security and cooperation in the region.

First Committee, October 23: consensus

UNGA: consensus

L.14: Effects of the Use of Depleted Uranium in Armaments (DEFEATED)

Introduced by Iraq

This resolution was introduced for the first time last year and, although it passed during the vote in the First Committee, it was defeated in the General Assembly. It once again recalls the provision of the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly regarding the need "to avert the danger of new types of weapons of mass destruction" and refers specifically to the harmful effects of the use of depleted uranium shells. The Secretary-General is once more requested to seek the views of states and relevant organisation on all aspects of the effects of the use of depleted uranium and submit a report at the 58th session of the General Assembly.

First Committee, October 25: 35-59-56 - RESOLUTION REJECTED

First Committee comments: This year, the resolution did not successfully pass beyond the First Committee. Many asserted that studies had failed to prove a link between depleted uranium (DU) and its alleged effect on health and the environment. A number of those who might, in other circumstances, have supported further investigations into the long-term health and environmental effects of depleted uranium, felt unable to support any resolution sponsored by Iraq at this time, and, moreover, said they disagreed with the assertion that DU was a new type of WMD.

Disarmament and International Security

UNGA 57/63 (L.10)
Promotion of Multilateralism in the Area of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of the NAM

This resolution was one of two introduced which emphasised the centrality of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (the second being the ill-fated Chair's resolution). While recognising "the complementarity of bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral negotiations on disarmament", it draws attention to the effectiveness of multilateral disarmament agreements in providing "the mechanism for the states parties to consult one another." In addition to urging the participation of all interested states in multilateral negotiations on arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament, the resolution seeks to reaffirm multilateralism as "the core principle" in disarmament and non-proliferations negotiations and concerns. It also calls upon member states to renew their various commitments to multilateral cooperation in this context.

First Committee, October 25: 100-11-44

UNGA: 105-12-44

First Committee comments: As with many NAM-sponsored resolutions on controversial issues, the vote was divided along Western caucus versus NAM lines. The United States, voting against the resolution, argued that it was more likely to create divisions than rally support. Several aspects of the draft resolution provoked concern, even among those who professed themselves committed to multilateralism. Not least among these objections was the change from last year's resolution (56/24T) - which referred to multilateralism as "a core principle" - to this year's, which referred to it as "the core principle. This was a concern of several delegations and was expressly referred to, following the vote, by Canada (in explanation of its abstention). This small but significant alteration was felt to imply a privileging of multilateralism over other valid and necessary contributions in this area involving plurilateral, bilateral and even unilateral actions. Some viewed OP6, in particular, as inflammatory, calling as it did for states to "refrain from resorting or threatening to resort to unilateral actions or directing unverified non-compliance accusations against one another." New Zealand, which abstained, expressed its concern that such sentiments were both unconstructive and confrontational, while Uruguay, also abstaining, noted that OP6 failed to define unilateral actions and in doing so, potentially incorporated all possible actions a state could take.

UNGA 57/83 (L.49/Rev.1)
Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Introduced by India and co-sponsored by Afghanistan, Bhutan, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Sri Lanka and Tuvalu

This resolution was designed to give a particular perspective to the issue of terrorism and WMD, which had infused much of the discussions and resolution of this year's First Committee, but through intensive discussions between the co-sponsors and others, it was expanded to reflect a much wider view. Between its initial and revised drafts, for example, the resolution was expanded from two to five operative paragraphs. At first, the resolution requested the Secretary-General to compile a report on measures already taken in this sphere. Many felt this did not go far enough in addressing the issue, and the revised version called upon member states to support international efforts to prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists and to strengthen national measures, as appropriate, to ensure this. It also encourages cooperation between member states and any relevant regional and international organisations capable of furthering and strengthening national capabilities in this regard.

First Committee, October 25: consensus

UNGA: consensus

L.29/Rev.3: Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and International Peace and Security (WITHDRAWN)

Introduced by the Chair of the First Committee, Matia Mulumba Semakula Kiwanuka of Uganda, with incorporation of amendment L.60, co-sponsored by Cuba and the Islamic Republic of Iran

It is very unusual for a Chair's resolution to be tabled in a controversial form, as it is normally expected to command consensus. With this resolution, which appeared to have been badly managed, this was very clearly not the case. In its final incarnation, the Chair's resolution stresses the need for a strengthening of respect for international law and the continuation of work towards the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. It also calls for compliance with all disarmament and non-proliferation agreements and their verification measures. The resolution, when including the amendment put forward by Cuba and the Islamic Republic of Iran, also reaffirmed multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations and in resolving disarmament and non-proliferation concerns. It further asserted the need for progress in these areas, particularly in regards to the prevention of terrorism.

First Committee, October 29: RESOLUTION WITHDRAWN

First Committee comments: The Chair's resolution was, from the outset, dogged by controversy and some antagonism. In its initial form, it was entitled "Multilateral cooperation in disarmament and non-proliferation" and was felt by many to be an unnecessary rehash of the South African-introduced resolution (L.10) which also focused on multilateralism. Further adding to the qualms was way in which it attempted (in PP7) to link the prevention of terrorism with the need to pursue disarmament. It took note of the findings of the Secretary-General's Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism "which found that United Nations activities in the field of disarmament must gain renewed relevance given concerns that terrorists may seek access to weapons of mass destruction or related technologies." In its first revision, the title was changed, the references to multilateralism toned down, and the reference to the Working Group report removed. In its place, the resolution noted that progress "is urgently needed in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation in order to help maintain international peace and security and to contribute to global efforts against terrorism." This was reiterated almost word for word in OP4. Amid continued objections, some states (India and the United States, to name only a couple) raised concerns about phrases such as found in OP3, which spoke of "the necessity to promote the adoption, universalisation and, where necessary, strengthening of treaties and other international instruments" in this field. It in the form of its second revision, the draft resolution received more warmth from many of the Western states, who felt they could probably support this version. Canada, while regretting the loss of the reference to universalisation, was pleased with the new references to compliance. Nonetheless, in winning the support of some states, the resolution lost the support of others, who felt the resolution had gone too far towards appeasement. There was, in addition, a general concern not to encourage a proliferation of chair's resolutions in the future. The debate continued until this resolution was the last remaining First Committee business to be considered. Even on this final day negotiations for a universally acceptable text continued. In its third incarnation Cuba and the Iran put forward their amendment (L,60), which not only highlighted multilateralism once more, but identified it as "the core principle" of negotiations for resolving disarmament and non-proliferation concerns. It was, of course, precisely this wording which had caused the rejection by the United States of the earlier South African resolution on multilateralism, as well as the abstention of others, who had complained that such phrasing overlooked the contributions of plurilateral, bilateral and unilateral activities in this area. Unsurprisingly, when the Chair incorporated the amendment, this latest version of the resolution proved to be unacceptable to many. As a consequence, the Chair's resolution was withdrawn and the First Committee was subsequently closed.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2002 The Acronym Institute.