| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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".
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).
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Introduced by Uzbekistan
A decision to place the item on next year's agenda.
First Committee, October 30: consensus
UNGA: consensus
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.