Disarmament Diplomacy

2008 First Committee Resolutions

Nuclear Weapon Free Zones

Back to the Index of Resolutions

63/38 (L.1)
Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East.

Introduced by Egypt.

This resolution, annually adopted by the UN General Assembly since 1974 and unchanged in previous years, reaffirms the right of all states to the acquisition and development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, urges all relevant parties to consider taking steps necessary for the implementation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, requests all states in the region to declare to the UN Security Council their support for such a zone, calls upon all states in the region to place their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards, and requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the resolution at the next session of the General Assembly.

First Committee: without a vote
UNGA: without a vote

The language of this resolution is moderate and balanced in order to ensure its adoption without a vote. Following tradition, the Israeli representative explained the decision to once again join consensus on this resolution despite their substantive reservations. Delivering a similar statement as in past years, the Israeli representative reiterated their view that the way forward was through a process beginning with confidence-building measures and followed by the restoration of peaceful relations after a track record of good neighbourliness had been established.

Back to the top of page

63/84 (L.2)
The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Introduced by Egypt on behalf of the Group of Arab States.

This annual resolution, unchanged from previous years, takes a more confrontational approach than the resolution calling for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. It specifically calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT, to not develop, test, or acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce the possession of nuclear weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards as a confidence-building measure. It notes Israel is the only country in the region not a member of the NPT and expresses concern about the threat to security and stability in the Middle East posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region. The resolution does not refer to any other state.

First Committee: 161-5-5; PP6: 157-4-5
General Assembly: 169-5-6; PP6: 167-5-4

The voting pattern has been unchanged on this resolution in past years. The no votes came from Israel, the United States, and US dependencies Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. The Committee voted separately to retain PP6, which makes reference to the final document of the NPT 2000 Review Conference and calls for universal adherence to the Treaty. This year, Pakistan joined India, Israel, and the United States in voting against this paragraph. Pakistan voted in favour of the whole resolution, but India abstained.

The US delegation reiterated its past criticism that the resolution does not meet its standards for fairness and balance. Abstainers included Canada and Australia, which raised concerns that the resolution did not mention the cases of Iran and Syria. The European Union had clearly taken a joint decision to vote in favour, but France, on behalf of the EU mentioned Iran and Syria and several other EU delegations took issue with what they characterized as the resolution's selective approach to the issue of proliferation in the region. Switzerland also faulted the resolution for taking into account only one aspect of the risk in the region and said the sponsors need to take into account the current context.

Back to the top of page

63/56 (L.28)
Mongolia's international security and nuclear-weapon-free status.

Introduced by Mongolia.

First introduced in 1998, the text of this biennial resolution is unchanged from resolution 61/87. Acting on the conviction that recognizing Mongolia's status contributes to regional confidence-building and stability, the text acknowledges measures taken to implement the resolution as well as the joint declaration of security assurances from the five nuclear weapon states. The resolution continues to appeal to states to keep cooperating with Mongolia to help consolidate its sovereignty, independence, economic and ecological security, as well as its nuclear weapon free status. It requests that the Secretary-General report on the implementation on this resolution at the 65th (2010) session of the General Assembly.

First Committee: without a vote
General Assembly: without a vote

France and the United States co-sponsored this resolution, respectively for the second and third consecutive time. Mongolia reported that since 2006, its nuclear weapon free status had been consolidated and institutionalized. As in 2006, India again welcomed the adoption of the resolution.

Back to the top of page

63/63 (L.37)
Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia.

Introduced by Kyrgyzstan on behalf of the five Central Asian states.

Last introduced in 2006, the resolution recognizes the importance of the CANWFZ Treaty and welcomes the ratifications of Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The resolution continues to note the readiness of the five Central Asian states to resume consultations with the nuclear weapon states over controversial provisions in the Treaty. The only change is the addition of an operative paragraph that welcomes the decision to convene a conference in Bishkek in 2009 on the problem of uranium tailings. The resolution is otherwise unchanged from resolution 61/88.

First Committee: 129-3-36
General Assembly: 141-3-36

The outcome of this resolution was the same as in 2006, in reflection of the lack of progress in the resolution of outstanding issues between the five Central Asian states (C5) and France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (P3). As in 2006, when the C5 introduced a resolution on the CANWFZ for the first time since signing the Treaty establishing the zone in September of that year, the P3 voted against and NATO-associated states abstained. A bloc of mainly-European states friendly to the P3 continued to support this resolution.

The United States delivered a statement on behalf of the P3, which reiterated their unresolved concerns over Article 12, which they claim gives precedence to previous security agreements between the C5 and Russia including nuclear weapons-related agreements (see report). Since the last C5-P3 consultations in 2002, the United States said it had resubmitted its questions twice-in 2005 and 2006-prior to the signing of the Treaty, but that the P3 had not received a satisfactory explanation. In their statement, the P3 again stated that they are not yet in a position to endorse the Treaty or adhere to the Protocol based on it, which would grant binding negative security assurances to the C5.

Italy-the only other member of NATO to deliver a statement on the issue-welcomed the Treaty and encouraged the C5 to continue consultations with the P3 on the Protocol. Japan again delivered a statement on behalf of eight delegations that are friendly to the P3 (Austria, Ireland, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, Switzerland and Sweden). Repeating the thrust of their 2006 statement, the delegations explained their vote in favour, noting the readiness of the C5 to resume consultations, but emphasizing the importance of consulting the nuclear weapon states during the negotiation of NWFZ treaties. Despite this reservation, the eight states regard the Treaty as an effort to achieve regional peace and stability, and to achieve nuclear disarmament.

Back to the top of page

63/65 (L.40)
Nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas.

Introduced by Brazil.

Unchanged from resolution 62/35, this resolution, which has been led by Brazil and New Zealand since 1996 and co-sponsored by a wide cross section of southern hemisphere states, calls for the ratification of all nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties and their protocols, as relevant. It places this call in the context of the determined pursuit of "the total elimination of nuclear weapons" and "the important role of NWFZ in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime". It recalls "the applicable principles and rules of international law relating to the freedom of the high seas and the rights of passage through maritime space", including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in order to assuage sceptical NWS. Recalling customary language on the conclusion of NWFZs, it welcomes steps to conclude further such treaties and calls upon states to consider relevant proposals, including those contained in the resolutions on NWFZs in the Middle East and South Asia.

First Committee: 161-3-8; OP6: 157-2-8
General Assembly: 171-3-7; OP6: 168-2-9

Delegations essentially followed the same routine on this resolution as that in past years. France, the United Kingdom, and the United States voted against the resolution. The United States delivered the annual statement on behalf of the three delegations, repeating their concerns that the resolution seeks establishment of a NWFZ composed primarily of the high seas. The statement also repeated their worry that the resolution conflicts with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and other norms and international laws relating to navigation. The three nuclear powers, all three of which transport or transit nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, or nuclear powered vessels through the waters of the southern hemisphere, reiterated that certain ambiguities in the text have not yet been eliminated.

India and Pakistan were the only two delegations to vote against OP6, which includes reference to establishing a NWFZ in South Asia. Breaking from past practice, India declined to call a separate vote on the last three words of OP6. The Indian and Pakistani delegations both reiterated their positions on the establishment of NWFZs and the India delegation again rhetorically questioned why the resolution does not also call for NWFZs in Western Europe or North America.

Back to the top of page

Back to the Index of Resolutions

© 2009 The Acronym Institute.