| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | NATO | US |
| Space/BMD | CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Back to the main article: Cooperation and Cautious Optimism: Report on the 2006 UN First Committee, by Jennifer Nordstrom
Below is a comprehensive summary and analysis of the 53 resolutions and 2 decisions adopted by the 61st First Committee and General Assembly. Voting is given as for: against: abstention. The votes in the First Committee took place between October 23 and October 30, 2006. The General Assembly adopted all the resolutions and draft decisions featured here on December 6, 2006.
'Consensus' denotes that a resolution was adopted without a vote. Some countries state that they have not participated in the consensus, while others prefer not to vote at all and be counted absent, along with those who are in serious arrears with the payment of their UN dues. A draft decision may be requested instead of a resolution, either when there is too much controversy to enable a resolution to go forward or to ensure the issue is on the UNGA agenda for a future year.
The First Committee votes are shown first, followed by voting figures from the UN General Assembly. GA numbers are given for the resolutions but were not available for the decisions. 'Rev' denotes an agreed revision incorporated before action was taken. Where possible we identify the state that introduces a resolution - normally this state has also taken the lead in negotiating with others on the text. For lists of all co-sponsors, check the UN documents.
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 underline obligations that have not yet been met or contain requests or instructions.
Numbers given here are from the official records. With regard to General Assembly votes, states that are in serious arrears with their payments to the UN are recorded as absent, whether or not they voted, which explains why even the co-sponsors of some resolutions are not recorded in the votes. There may also be discrepancies in voting figures due to requests by delegations for their votes to be recorded after missing or making mistakes during the electronic voting procedure. For all statements, resolutions and non-papers from the First Committee, see the Reaching Critical Will website:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1comindex1.html#2006.
For summaries of each week of the proceedings, see the First Committee Monitor: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/FCM.html
Index
UNGA 61/104 (L.48/Rev.1) Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) [Australia]
UNGA 61/74 (L.32*) Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons [Japan]
157-7-13
UNGA 61/78 (L.39) Nuclear Disarmament (time-bound) [Myanmar/Burma]
UNGA 61/97 (L.51) Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons [India]
UNGA 61/95 (L.31) United Nations Disarmament Information Programme
Introduced by Australia, in accordance with tradition on behalf also of Mexico and New Zealand, with overwhelming, cross-group co-sponsorship and endorsement.
Revised to include a condemnation of North Korea's nuclear test, this CTBT resolution updates the resolutions of 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. It underlines the continuing urgency of the treaty and its entry into force. It notes that 176 states have signed, including 41 of the 44 needed for entry into force, and that 125 states have ratified, including 34 of the 44. Remaining states, especially the necessary 10, are urged to accelerate their ratification process to enable the treaty to enter into force. The resolution urges all states to maintain their existing moratoria and to refrain from doing anything that would defeat the CTBT's object and purpose in the meanwhile (such as conducting a nuclear explosion). In addition to including a condemnation of the North Korean nuclear test, the first draft of the resolution was also revised to remove the suggestion for states that have not yet ratified the treaty "to consider confidence-building measures, including, if appropriate, coordinated ratification".
First Committee: 175-2-4
UNGA: 172-2-4
The CTBT resolution took on added significance this year, in light of the first nuclear test since the Indian and Pakistani tests in 1998. It was grimly noted that the United States finally had company in its opposition to the CTBT, as North Korea joined it in opposing the resolution, rejecting the Committee's condemnation of its October 9 nuclear test. The same four states (Colombia, India, Mauritius and Syria) abstained as they have for the last four years.
The United States explained, "[w]e cannot support a resolution supporting the CTBT. Nevertheless I would like to note our support for the position expressed in Operative Paragraph 5, which condemns the DPRK's nuclear test and demands that the DPRK do [sic] not conduct further tests."
Before the vote, the EU gave a general statement highlighting the "urgent need" for the "entry into force of the CTBT at the earliest possible date". The EU urged the international community to "redouble [its] efforts to complete the outstanding ratifications that are required", especially from the necessary Annex II states. The EU also pushed for North Korea to "sign and ratify the CTBT" and "to refrain from conducting any further nuclear test." Pakistan and Israel, two of the 44 Annex II states that have yet to ratify the CTBT, voted in favour of the resolution. Pakistan stated that it "supports the objectives of the CTBT" and voted for the resolution in keeping with its policy of restraint and responsibility. Israel noted it has been working to add to the CTBT verification regime and reiterated that the regime needs to be "robust" and "immune to abuse," and that completion of the verification regime is a "prerequisite" to entry into force. Israel also pushed the importance of the compliance with the CTBT in the Middle East.
Iran also voted in support of L.48/Rev.1 and asserted, "the CTBT entry into force has faced a serious setback by the rejection of the ratification process of the United States." Iran was particularly critical of the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) plans to create new and improved nuclear weapons and noted, "[t]est explosions are a key step in the design, development and refinement of nuclear weapons".
Syria maintained that the CTBT is insufficient because it ignores the legitimate concerns of non-nuclear weapon states and does not contain an obligation for nuclear weapon states to stop conducting lab tests, eliminate their arsenals or halt the development of new weapons. Colombia reaffirmed its support for the treaty despite "constitutional impediments" delaying ratification. It is understood that Colombia's national laws preclude its payment for a treaty until it ratifies; since September 1996, in accordance with the UN resolution adopting the CTBT, states have been paying towards the establishment of the CTBTO. Colombia appears to be concerned that when it deposits its ratification it will be hit with a large bill for backdated contributions which, according to its domestic law, it is not permitted to pay.
Introduced by Japan, with significant co-sponsorship
Japan's disarmament resolution is basically an update this year of the significantly revised version from last year, emphasising the importance of the NPT and highlighting some of the first of 2000 NPT final document's 13 steps towards nuclear disarmament, including the CTBT and a fissile materials treaty. This year they specifically called upon states parties to the NPT to engage constructively in the 2007 NPT Preparatory Committee, and included a new operative paragraph calling on the Conference on Disarmament to resume substantive work "considering the developments of this year in the Conference". Japan also added a preambular paragraph condemning the North Korean nuclear test.
The resolution includes paragraphs on reducing the operational status and diminishing the role of nuclear weapons, and takes a strong stand on the CTBT and fissile materials ban. However, in OP9, Japan emulated recent EU statements by not reiterating the Shannon mandate and by omitting any direct reference to multilateral verification, emphasising instead: "the importance of the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and its early conclusion, and calls upon all nuclear weapon states and states not parties to the [NPT] to declare moratoriums on the production of fissile material for any nuclear weapons pending the entry into force of the Treaty". The resolution also calls for the "universalization of the IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreements and the Model [Additional] Protocol..." (OP11), as well as providing a strong endorsement for implementation of the recommendations of the UN study on disarmament and non-proliferation education (OP12).
First Committee: 169-3-8
UNGA: 167-4-7
Although the EU jointly supported Japan's resolution again, the NAC did not: Egypt moved back into the abstention column, though the rest of the NAC continued to vote in favour. India and the United States were joined by North Korea, because the resolution condemned its nuclear test. China, Iran, Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, Cuba, Myanmar (Burma) and Bhutan abstained.
The United States called the resolution the "most balanced and realistic" of the nuclear disarmament resolutions and supported its condemnation of the North Korean nuclear test, but still voted against because of the resolution's support for the CTBT. It was joined by North Korea, which opposed the condemnation of its nuclear test, and India, which opposes the NPT. Pakistan and Iran, both of which abstained, thought the draft contained too much emphasis on nonproliferation, and not enough on disarmament. Iran also noted that the resolution only focusses on the fissban as an item on the CD agenda and [in a reference to the omission of the Shannon Mandate] that it is "not consistent with the previous agreements" on the verifiability of a treaty. Egypt criticised the text for not fully reflecting the consensus commitment made in the 13 Practical Steps at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.
Introduced by Mexico on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition
In addition to reaffirming the 13 practical steps from 2000 NPT Review Conference in this now annual resolution, the NAC added a paragraph condemning North Korea's nuclear test. The relatively short resolution is based (as last year's) on the principles adopted by the 2000 NPT review conference, including the "unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals". In just 5 operative paragraphs, it reaffirms the 2000 review conference outcome, calls on the nuclear weapon states to accelerate implementation of the practical steps, calls on states to comply fully with all their nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation obligations and "not to act in any way that may be detrimental to either cause or that may lead to a new nuclear arms race". In OP4 it calls for universality and urges by name "India, Israel and Pakistan, which are not yet parties to the Treaty, to accede to it as non-nuclear weapon states promptly and without conditions."
The draft's operative paragraph 6 went through three versions. The first version called on North Korea to rescind its withdrawal from the NPT but was silent on the issue of the nuclear test. A revised text changed that paragraph so as to condemn "all nuclear tests by States parties and States non-parties" to the NPT, with a specific mention of North Korea. The third version retained the condemnation of North Korea's test, but changed the language to condemn "all nuclear-weapon tests by States that are not yet parties to [the NPT] and any further nuclear-weapon test by any State whatsoever."
First Committee: 148-7-12
UNGA: 157-7-13
Like last year, France, India, Israel, the UK and US opposed the NAC resolution, and were joined by North Korea and Pakistan because of the broad condemnation of nuclear testing contained in its new paragraph condemning the North Korean nuclear test. Estonia, Georgia, Portugal and Spain, who abstained last year, moved to vote in favour, while Malawi joined the odd assortment of European, former Soviet and semi-colonial states that abstained, including Albania, Belarus, Bhutan, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. The Russian Federation and Australia also continued to abstain.
Speaking on behalf of the UK, US and France, the British representative said the draft "takes account neither of the concrete progress nor the concrete efforts underway by the three countries" in fulfilling their Article VI obligations, nor mentions their willingness to negotiate an FMCT. India and Pakistan both objected to the new language on nuclear testing, and Pakistan chose to vote against the resolution because of it.
Introduced by Canada
After failing to appear last year because US opposition to multilateral verification for the fissban had divided the international community, this short and simple resolution was revised by Canada from its 2004 version, removing references to the Shannon Mandate and beginning negotiations as part of a programme of work in the CD. In four preambular and one operative paragraph, the draft text recalled previous resolutions on a fissile materials treaty and the 2006 report of the CD, welcomed moratoriums on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and urged the CD to begin negotiations on a fissile materials treaty.
First Committee: withdrawn
Canada ended up withdrawing the resolution when it became clear that it would garner even less support than in 2004, when only the US objected to it in the First Committee, with Israel and the UK abstaining. Fearing that a divisive GA vote could undermine prospects for fissban negotiations instead of bolstering them, a number of states pressed Canada not to let the resolution go to a vote. In explaining the withdrawal, Ambassador Paul Meyer said that it would not be possible to reconcile differences over how "minimalist" the resolution should be, and that without consensus, the resolution would not provide the right signal to the CD.
Pakistan made it clear in the First Committee's Thematic Debate that negotiations on a fissile materials treaty would only be able to take place within a "balanced and comprehensive" CD programme of work, a position also reflected in statements from Iran and Cuba.
Introduced by Brazil
The resolution requesting the Secretary-General to service the upcoming cycle of NPT Preparatory Committees and its Review Conference was slightly unusual this year because it proposed Vienna rather than New York as the venue. During the past two cycles, the PrepComs have been alternated between New York and Geneva, but due to intensive lobbying by Austria, it has been agreed to hold the 2007 PrepCom in Vienna.
Notably, the preambular paragraphs of the resolution recall the outcomes of the NPT 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the 2000 Review Conference, as well as the inability of the 2005 Review Conference to produce "a consensus substantive outcome on the review of the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty".
First Committee: 163-0-3
UNGA: 175-0-3
For months, Austria, backed by the EU, has been pushing for the first PrepCom to be held in Vienna, ostensibly to commemorate the IAEA's 50th anniversary. The United States was resisting because it did not want to set a precedent for holding the meetings at different locations in the future. After weeks of negotiations that continued well into the First Committee, the US finally agreed and the resolution went ahead, with only India, Israel and Pakistan abstaining.
Introduced by Burma/Myanmar with co-sponsorship from some NAM states
With three pages of preamble and 23 OPs, this traditional omnibus resolution on nuclear disarmament evokes past NAM declarations and recommendations, UN Special Sessions on Disarmament and the Millennium Declaration, and the NPT agreements especially from 2000. It enshrines several NAM priorities, including recollection of the NAM call for nuclear disarmament within a specified time frame, a call for legally-binding negative security assurances, and a call for an international conference on nuclear disarmament. Its provenance means it is not widely respected, although most NAM countries continue to line up and vote in favour. With similar ritual, based more on politics than text, it is opposed by NATO and its aligned states.
First Committee: 105-45-6
UNGA: 115-48-18
The votes in favour came primarily from the NAM. As in past years, NATO voted against the resolution, driven by their P-3 nuclear weapon states, Britain, France and the US; China voted for, and Russia abstained. India and Pakistan also abstained, citing the references to the NPT. The New Agenda countries split, with the two European countries in the coalition (Ireland and Sweden) abstaining, while the others voted yes. Japan, which abstained, said the resolution "lacked certain elements", considered to be an oblique reference to the failure of the draft to include recognition of positive progress, such as the reduction of strategic arms by the US and Russia.
Introduced by Malaysia with co-sponsorship from around 20 NAM states
First tabled after the ICJ advisory opinion of July 1996 on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, this resolution underlines the ICJ's major unanimous conclusion that "there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control" (OP1) and links it with a call for "commencing multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination" (OP2). It recalls many international obligations, including the principles and objectives adopted at the 1995 NPT Review Conference, the 2000 Review Conference thirteen steps, the various nuclear-weapons-free zones, and traditional NAM positions, such as a timebound framework for nuclear disarmament. In this regard, it stresses that the CD should "commence negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time" (PP12).
First Committee: OP1: 159-4-3
Whole resolution: 118-27-26
UNGA: OP1: 168-3-5
Whole resolution: 125-28-29
As in previous years, the resolution was supported by a variety of countries including some non-aligned, Western, and nuclear possessing, including China, India and Pakistan. France, Israel, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States opposed the resolution.
Japan and Russia provided an explanation of their votes. Russia said it continued to oppose the resolution for reasons known to all, which have not changed. While Japan, which abstained, expressed its support for the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and for the unanimous opinion of the ICJ, but "believe[s] it is premature to call upon all the state immediately to fulfill that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons." Japan, instead, called for steady and incremental progress towards negotiations on nuclear disarmament.
Introduced by India with co-sponsorship from several NAM states
First introduced in 1998, just after India heralded in the nuclear weaponisation of South Asia by conducting explosions in May (which Pakistan quickly emulated), this dealerting resolution is in its ninth year and has become somewhat of a ritual. It focusses on the adoption of measures to prevent accidents arising from computer or other technical malfunctions, as well as nuclear postures based on "hair-trigger alert". In addition to general exhortations for all member states to work to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote nuclear disarmament, it calls for a review of nuclear doctrines (OP1), specifically by the five NWS (OP2), and requests the Secretary-General to intensify efforts to implement the seven recommendations in the report of the Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters and the Millennium Declaration, including creating consensus for an international conference on reducing nuclear dangers and the risks of nuclear war.
First Committee: 105-50-13
UNGA: 118-52-13
In making a call for a move away from hair-trigger alert status, India is in line with calls that have been made by the Canberra Commission in 1996 and WMD Commission (Recommendation 17 P92 and 193), but it is hard to escape the sting of hypocrisy. There is deep scepticism about India's real motives for this resolution. Neither India nor Pakistan have the technology yet for hair-trigger alert, so the resolution mainly serves as a criticism of certain nuclear weapon states without running the risk of being applied to India itself. Unless the issue gets taken up internationally by more credible sponsors, we can expect the resolution to be ignominiously dropped if India's nuclear arsenal becomes sufficiently sophisticated.
Despite almost universal support for the essential goal of reducing nuclear dangers, the provenance of this resolution means that the votes in favour over the last three years has hovered around 115, with substantial numbers withholding support. The main splits are along NAM-Western lines, with China, Japan, South Korea and a few Eastern European/Central Asian states abstaining. Explanations for votes against and abstentions have included the problematic reference to "hair-trigger alert," a term that nuclear weapon states claim is inaccurate.
Introduced by Mexico
This decision puts the item entitled "United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament" onto the agenda of the 62nd session of the General Assembly.
First Committee: 116-3-44
UNGA: 128-3-44
Mexico continues to do its utmost to get this conference off the ground. As with last year, the US, UK and France voted against. Poland and Israel, who voted against last year, have now joined the abstentions. The New Agenda states voted in favour, as did most of the NAM. Most NATO countries abstained.
Introduced by India with the co-sponsorship of a number of NAM states
India, despite its own nuclear testing and weapons capabilities, continues to take the lead in sponsoring this resolution on nuclear use, which evokes the July 1996 ICJ opinion and various past UN resolutions, and argues that a multilateral, universal and binding agreement prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would contribute to the total elimination of nuclear threats. Despite regretting the CD's inability to agree any kind of a work plan, the two OPs continue to request the CD to commence negotiations on an international convention "prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances" and to report the results to the General Assembly.
First Committee: 108-50-10
UNGA: 119-52-10
This is a further example of an important issue being given short shrift because of the resolution's provenance and ritualistic appearance year after year. The vote divided along traditional lines, with most NAM states and China voting in favour, and the EU/NATO aligned bloc, Australia and New Zealand voting against. Russia and Japan were among the handful that abstained, together with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cote d'Ivoire, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea, and Uzbekistan. Argentina, which abstained last year, voted in favour this year, while Republic of Moldova and Ukraine moved from abstaining to opposing.
Introduced by Pakistan with co-sponsorship from a handful of NAM states
Pakistan's traditional resolution on security assurances, tabled since 1990, has been carried forward with few changes over the years, despite Pakistan's own nuclear tests and assertion of nuclear weapon possession and status. In a text almost identical with last year's, it evokes numerous past UN and NAM meetings and declarations, asserts the need to safeguard the "independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty" of non-nuclear weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and argues that, until nuclear disarmament has been achieved universally, a common approach on security assurances needs to be negotiated. Among the six OPs, three refer to the CD, which is called on to "actively continue intensive negotiations" on effective international arrangements.
First Committee: 108-1-57
UNGA: 119-1-59
For the first time this year, the United States changed its abstention on this traditional resolution to a vote against. Prior to this move, the importance of the issue prevented states from voting against, despite widespread scepticism about this resolution and the contradiction of its lead sponsor being determined to become accepted as a new nuclear power. The United States simply reiterated its explanation of vote from previous years, that it "continues to oppose any proposal for a negative security assurances treaty, or global, legally binding security assurances regime," but did not explain why it changed its vote. With few changes in the resolution's text over the years, most of the NAM votes in favour, while NATO and European states abstain en bloc. Although some may be dissatisfied with the security assurances contained in UNSC 984 (1995), many view this issue as more appropriately dealt with in the context of the NPT, rather than the CD. However, NSAs are one of four issues linked to a programme of work in the CD, and even if they might be better dealt with in an NPT context, the United States' opposition vote indicates a continuing hardline attitude, likely to make resolution of the CD deadlock more difficult.
Introduced by Iran, together with Egypt and Indonesia
In its eighth year, following two panels of government experts, this draft resolution takes note of the Secretary-General's report to the 61st General Assembly on missiles, which was requested by the 2004 resolution on this issue, and puts it back on the agenda for next year. In its preambular paragraphs, it highlights the need for a "comprehensive approach towards missiles, in a balanced and non-discriminatory manner", referring to the Hague Code of Conduct and the Missile Technology Control Regime. The sponsors of the resolution have contended these voluntary regimes are lacking because they do not cover ballistic missiles, and are not universal. It also underlines "the complexities" of dealing with missiles, which supporters of this resolution and the Groups of Governmental Experts it has created contend are the reason they have not been able to come to consensus.
First Committee: 105-6-55
UNGA: 115-7-54
Israel and the United States, the two negative votes of 2005, were joined this year by Albania, France, Micronesia and the United Kingdom, while there was a block abstention by the EU and rest of NATO. There have been two previous panels on missiles. The first, which reported back in 2002, provided a useful overview, but irreconcilable differences of approach among the states represented meant that the panel could not agree on recommendations. The second was able to go no further than the first. The EU questioned the effectiveness of the steps in this resolution and its 2004 predecessor. The US objected to this issue having been put back on the agenda after the failure of the second panel to reach agreement. The US commended the diligent work of the experts, and argued that the work of the third panel should be based on the final report of the second panel, rather than starting from scratch or using the new report on missiles for the UN Institute for Disarmament Research. The EU also said the third panel should base its work on the first two panels, particularly the "nearly-completed final report" of the second, rather than repeating work already done.
Introduced by Egypt on behalf of the League of Arab States
This traditional resolution, which goes back to 1974, cites the need for the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East, while at the same time reaffirming the right of states to develop and acquire nuclear energy for so-called peaceful purposes. It invites all countries of the region to declare their support for establishing such a zone.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
The language of this resolution is deliberately kept moderate to enable it to be adopted without a vote. Israel said that it had joined consensus, as it has done for over 20 years, "notwithstanding substantive reservations regarding certain elements of the resolution". Repeating the mantra that a NWFZ must be based on "arrangements freely arrived at among all the states in the region concerned", Israel believed that "the political realities in the Middle East mandate a gradual process based on a step-by-step approach", with the first step focussing on "modest CBMs...followed by the establishment of peaceful relations". It said this process could not begin, however, when "some of the parties concerned still maintain a state of war with each other, refuse in principle to maintain peaceful relations with Israel or even recognize its right to exist." Israel also said the the year's events did not help regional peace and stability: "realising this vision cannot be made without a fundamental change in regional circumstances and not least, without a significant transformation in the attitude of states in the region towards Israel".
Introduced by Egypt on behalf of the League of Arab States
This annual resolution is the less consensual sibling of the previous, and names Israel, while stressing the need for universality of the NPT. PP6, on which there was a separate vote, emphasises the conclusions on the Middle East adopted by NPT parties in 2000. Noting that Israel is now the only state in the region that remains outside the NPT it calls upon that state "to accede... without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under fullscope" IAEA safeguards. In addressing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the resolution does not mention the IAEA additional protocol or raise concerns about the activities of any states other than Israel.
First Committee: PP6, 151-2-6
Whole resolution: 156-4-6
UNGA: PP6, 165-2-6
Whole resolution: 166-5-6
As in past years, there was a split vote on PP6, which made reference to the final document of the NPT 2000 Review Conference and called for universal adherence to the Treaty, as well as strict compliance by all parties with their obligations. The GA adopted PP6 by 162-2-6. Israel and India opposed, while Bhutan, Ethiopia, the Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Pakistan and the United States abstained. The GA then adopted the whole resolution by 166 votes to 5, with 6 abstentions. The US joined Israel in voting against the entire resolution, as did US dependencies Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. The Marshall Islands abstained on PP6, while Micronesia and Palau did not vote. Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Ethiopia, India and Tonga abstained.
While Israel agreed that a risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East exists, it maintained that other states were the source of this threat, proven by the year's events, and that the region is particularly threatened by "the ongoing activities of Iran and its total disregard to both the IAEA Board of Governors and the relevant UNSC resolutions." Israel objected that the resolution does not acknowledge this, overlooks the "the profound hostility of states in the region towards Israel" and instead "focuses entirely and by name, on one country that has never threatened its neighbours nor abrogated its obligations under any disarmament treaty". Israel argued that the resolution conferred no credibility on the UN First Committee and urged other delegations to vote against.
Australia agreed that L.2 is too focused on Israel and makes no mention of Iran's non-compliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement. Canada also expressed concern over the lack of balance and incomplete scope of the resolution, and chose to abstain, hoping it will be revised next year. Cameroon called for less polemic, and for non-discriminatory language to be considered in revisions. The European Union voted for L.2 but is likewise concerned "over Iran's nuclear programme" and "regrets that . . . Iran has not fulfilled the obligations established by UN Security Council Resolution".
Introduced by Uzbekistan, on behalf of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan
The first resolution on the NWFZ in Central Asia since the five Central Asian states (C5) signed the treaty on September 8, 2006, this welcomes the signing of the treaty and notes the readiness of the C5 to continue consultations with the nuclear weapon states "on a number of provisions", understood principally to mean Article 12, which the UK, US and France oppose because they say it privileges prior security arrangements over the treaty. The preambular paragraphs consider the treaty's establishment "on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region" as an important step towards strengthening the non-proliferation regime, and as an effective contribution to combating nuclear terrorism. An earlier version "note[d the signing of the treaty] with satisfaction" instead of welcoming it.
First Committee: 128-3-36
UNGA: 141-3-37
Having generally received consensus in past year, the CANWFZ resolution has now proved controversial, following the September 8 signing of the treaty establishing the zone, the first NWFZ located entirely in the Northern Hemisphere. The vote was pushed to the last day as the Central Asian states worked to garner more support and the US pushed to increase opposition to it. The US, UK and France have become vociferous in their opposition to the treaty, on the grounds that Article 12 gives precedence to previous security agreements between the five Central Asian (C5) states and Russia, which, they say, could include nuclear weapons-related agreements. Moreover, the US expressed concern that the treaty might impede it from moving nuclear-powered or nuclear-capable ships and aircraft through the zone.
The resolution was passed with 128 votes in favour, 3 (the US, UK and France) opposed, and 36 abstentions. European and NATO countries, and Australia, mostly abstained. A group of 12 of the 26 NATO countries explained their vote in a statement delivered by the Netherlands. Ambassador Landman explained that while they welcomed the initiative towards establishing a CANWFZ in principle, outstanding issues needed to be resolved through further consultations. Canada said its abstention was due to ambiguity over how Article 12 will impact the nature of the treaty, and hoped that consultations would resolve the issue. Japan spoke on behalf of a group of US allies (Austria, Ireland, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, Switzerland and Sweden) that voted in favour of the resolution, noting the expressed readiness of the C5 states to continue consulting with the nuclear weapon states, which is included in the resolution. Japan said the seven delegations saw the treaty as an effort to strengthen regional peace and stability, and encouraged the C5 to continue consultations.
Introduced by Mongolia
This biannual resolution recognises Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status as enhancing the stability of the region and Mongolia's security by "strengthening its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, the inviolability of its borders and the preservation of its ecological balance" and invites Member States to cooperate with Mongolia in that regard. It requests the Secretary-General to assist Mongolia in continuing to enhance its security, appreciates the assistance to date, and requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution to the 2008 General Assembly.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Established in 2000, Mongolia is the only single-state NWFZ. Situated between Russia and China, Mongolia originally tried to become a part of the Central Asian NWFZ, but does not share any borders with the C5. In its report to the UN General Assembly, Mongolia gave an account of its actions to seek agreements with the NWS on recognizing the zone. [See Information on the implementation of the law of Mongolia on its nuclear-weapon-free status and resolution of the State Great Hural: Annex to the letter dated 16 August 2006 from the Permanent Representative of Mongolia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc A/61/293, 28 August 2006] Mongolia also reported on activities to codify its NWFZ through domestic legislation. The UN Secretary-General circulated a report on Mongolia's NWFZ indicating the support the UN has given Mongolia in its establishment of the zone [Mongolia's international security and nuclear-weapon-free status, Report of the Secretary-General, A/61/164, 19 July 2006]. Every two years, this resolution is adopted without a vote. India again noted its total support for Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status.
Introduced by Brazil, together with New Zealand, with the co-sponsorship of a wide cross-group of states in the southern hemisphere
The resolution, which has been led by Brazil and New Zealand since 1996, places its calls for the ratification of all nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties and their protocols, as relevant, in the context of the determined pursuit of "the total elimination of nuclear weapons" and "the important role of NWFZ in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime." It also recalls "the applicable principles and rules of international law relating to the freedom of the high seas and the rights of passage through maritime space", including UNCLOS, but as the votes reflect, this paragraph has failed to bring the sceptical NWS on board. Using the traditional language associated with NWFZs, OP5 "welcomes the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the states of the region concerned, and calls upon all states to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free-zones in the Middle East and South Asia". It contains a revised operative paragraph welcoming the signing of the Central Asian NWFZ.
First Committee: OP5 (last three words of): 160-2-11
OP5: 161-1-9
Resolution as a whole: 168-3-7
UNGA OP5 (last three words of): 162-2-9
UNGA OP5: 164-1-9
UNGA Resolution as a whole: 167-3-9
In the now-familiar routine, France, the UK and US opposed this resolution citing fears about its impact on the law of the sea, and India called for a separate vote on OP5, and its last three words "and South Asia".
The UK, US and France delivered their explanation of vote together, as usual, citing concerns about conflict with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or other norms and international laws relating to navigation. All three transport nuclear weapons and/or materials through the waters of the Southern Hemisphere. Their concerns that the real goal of the resolution is to ban nuclear weapons from the high seas remain unallayed by the resolution's referencing the law of the sea.
India again called for a vote to remove specific mention of the need for a NWFZ in South Asia (the words "and South Asia") from OP5, which only India and Pakistan oppose. India then voted against OP5 altogether, while Pakistan shifted to an abstention. Finally, having yet again failed to achieve any modification of the resolution, as in past years, India and Pakistan both abstained, together with Bhutan, Israel, the Marshall Islands, the Russian Federation and Spain. Practically duplicating its statement of previous years, India declared that OP5 was inconsistent with the understanding that NWFZ must be freely arrived at by the states concerned, and queried why South Asia was singled out.
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of the NAM
This short biannual resolution recalls the international community's support for the 1925 Geneva Protocol, renews its call to states to strictly uphold the Protocol and calls upon states to withdraw their objections to it.
First Committee: 163-0-2
UNGA: 173-0-4
The United States and Israel were the sole abstentions from this resolution in the First Committee, and were joined two US dependencies, the Marshall Islands and Palau, in the General Assembly.
During the thematic debate, France introduced a non-paper encouraging states to withdraw their reservations to the Protocol. According to France, 22 states still hold such reservations, "that are often incompatible with the commitments made within the framework of the BTWC and the CWC".
Introduced by Poland on behalf of CWC states parties
This resolution, which underlines the importance of the CWC and the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), included several new elements this year. Most importantly, the new OP5 reaffirms the obligation of states parties to completely destroy their stocks of chemical weapons and facilities by the Convention's deadline. It notes with satisfaction that five more states have brought the parties to the CWC up to 179. The resolution welcomes progress towards implementation of the various articles and calls for the CWC's "full, universal and effective implementation" so as to exclude completely the possibility of any further use of chemical weapons. It underscores the contribution of this treaty to the "global fight against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations" and reaffirms the key points in the CWC's First Special Session's Political Declaration, such as universalisation, effective application of the verification system, fulfilment of financial obligations, economic and technological development and peaceful international cooperation. Other new elements include welcoming the new Director-General of the OPCW, welcoming the beginning of the preparatory work towards the Second Special Session of the Conference of States Parties to Review the Operation of the CWC, and drawing attention to the tenth anniversary of the CWC's entry into force, on 29 April, 2007.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Member states are preparing for the eleventh session of the Conference of States Parties to the CWC, where they will address the possibility of extending the deadlines for destroying their chemical weapons stockpiles, presently set for 2012. Some states, including New Zealand and Canada, oppose such an extension, since, as South Korea pointed out during the debates, "the Convention clearly stipulates that in no case shall the deadline for a State Party to complete its destruction of all chemical weapons be extended beyond April 2012." Switzerland urged all signatory countries to "do everything in their power to destroy all their stocks of chemical weapons within the time frame envisaged in the Convention." Switzerland also noted that "stocks of residual chemical weapons not only pose a threat to the environment and to populations but are also a possible source of supply, notably for terrorist groupings." During debates, many states called for universalisation and full implementation of the CWC.
Introduced by Hungary with support from BTWC states parties.
Noting with satisfaction the increase in BTWC membership to 155 states parties, the resolution underlines the Treaty's effective prohibition of the use of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and their development, production and stockpiling under all circumstances. It welcomes the convening of the Sixth Review Conference, which will be held in Geneva November20 - December 8, 2006. It also records the decisions of the Fifth Review Conference to discuss and promote common understanding and effective action: explicitly, in 2003, the "adoption of necessary national measures to implement" the Convention, "including the enactment of penal legislation, and national mechanisms to establish and maintain the security and oversight of pathogenic micro-organisms and toxins"; in 2004 "enhancing international capabilities for responding to, investigating and mitigating the effects of cases of alleged use of biological or toxin weapons or suspicious outbreaks of disease, and strengthening and broadening national and international institutional efforts and existing mechanisms for the surveillance, detection, diagnosis and combating of infectious diseases affecting humans, animals and plants"; and in 2005 "on the topic of the content, promulgation and adoption of codes of conduct for scientists", finally calling on all BWC parties to participate in its implementation. The resolution calls for further signatures and ratification, increased information exchange and resources to implement the BWC states parties' decisions.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
During the debates, states called for further universalisation of the BTWC, to which 155 states are currently party. The EU, as well as Australia, South Korea, India, Japan, New Zealand, and Norway supported continuing inter-sessional meetings between Review Conferences of the BTWC. Several states mentioned the danger connected with the rapid technological advancements in the field of biotechnology and genetic sciences during the thematic debate in this year's session. Some of those countries also called for a reflection of these developments in the Review Conference.
On behalf of the European Union, Finland made a general statement prior to the vote on the resolution supporting further strengthening the Convention. The EU will do this "by actively working towards a successful outcome of the Review Conference later this year". The EU will also "contribute to a full review of the operation of the Convention, promote efforts to enhance transparency through an increased exchange of information among States Parties, support further action being taken on the results of the inter-sessional work, and support a further inter-sessional work programme until the Seventh Review Conference that should be held no later than 2011".
Introduced by India
With minimal updates this year, this resolution recognises the international community's determination to combat terrorism and expressing concern about the growing risk of linkages between terrorism and WMD. With careful wording so as to enable adoption by consensus, the resolution "is cognizant of the steps" taken by states to implement UNSC Resolution 1540 (April 2004) on WMD, and welcomes adoption by consensus of two further instruments: the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (April 13, 2005) and amendments to strengthen the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material by the IAEA (July 8, 2005). It also notes the Final Document of the NAM heads of State or Government from 2006, as well as the G-8, EU and ASEAN initiatives , and makes specific reference to the IAEA resolution adopted in September, 2006 (GC(50)/RES/DEC(2006)). In 6 OPs it calls on all states to support international efforts and to undertake and strengthen national measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD, their means of delivery, as well as the materials and technologies related to their manufacture. OP2 now "appeals to" states instead of "inviting" them to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, to ensure its early entry into force. The resolution also encourages regional and international cooperation to strengthen national capacities, and requests the Secretary-General to compile a report on measures and seek states' views of further measures for tackling the global threat posed by the acquisition by terrorists of WMD.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
This resolution has gained wide support, with co-sponsorship from both NAM and European countries. Though its 2002 origins were as much about India's concerns about the role of Pakistan in Kashmir-related violence, the resolution now goes far wider, acting as a medium for promoting UNSC Resolution 1540 (2004) on WMD and further developments in international laws and agreements relating to terrorism. Pakistan, while going along with the consensus and expressing its support for the objective of L.52 in its explanation of vote, again stipulated that the language of the resolution needs improvement to more accurately represent the reality of terrorism.
During the thematic debate, Dr. Hans Blix, Chair of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC), and Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs U. Joy Ogwu, Chair of the Secretary'General's Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, made similar arguments that WMD terrorism would best be prevented by strengthening arms control and disarmament.
Introduced by Egypt, together with Sri Lanka
This year, the co-sponsors revised this traditionally unchanging resolution to include a new preambular paragraph "noting with satisfaction the constructive, structured and focused debate on [PAROS] at the {CD} in 2006". The resolution notes "the importance and urgency" of the issue and that "the prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security". It reaffirms that the exploration and use of outer space should be for peaceful purposes only and should be carried out "for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development". The resolution underlines the importance of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and other international instruments but recognises that the current "legal regime applicable to outer space does not in and of itself guarantee the prevention of an arms race in outer space", that "there is a need to consolidate and reinforce that regime and enhance its effectiveness and that it is important to comply strictly with existing agreements, both bilateral and multilateral". It emphasises the need for "further measures with appropriate and effective provisions for verification to prevent an arms race in outer space", recognises "the growing convergence of views on the elaboration of measures designed to strengthen transparency, confidence and security in the peaceful uses of outer space", and calls on the Conference on Disarmament to complete examining and updating its mandate from 1992 and establish an ad hoc committee on PAROS in its 2007 session.
First Committee: 166-1-2
UNGA: 178-1-1
The United States again opposed this resolution, which it did for the first time last year. However, Israel, which opposed it in the GA last year, left Washington isolated by abstaining in both the First Committee and the GA. The Cote d'Ivoire abstained in the First Committee because it did not have directions from capital, but did not register any abstention in the GA. Following the vote, in an explanation nearly identical to the one it gave last year and intended to address both space-related resolutions, the US reiterated its position that there is no arms race in outer space, nor any prospect of such an arms race. It said the existing outer space arms control regime already dealt adequately with this issue. The US claimed that it took international law and the exploration of space seriously, but saw no reason for further international institutions to address "a non-existent arms race in outer space". The US said it was committed to peaceful purposes, but included among these appropriate defence activities in pursuit of national security and other goals.
According to its new National Space Policy, released on October 6, 2006, the United States opposes "the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of space," and will continue to "dissuade or deter others from impeding [its right to operate in space] . . . and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests". In the First Committee debate, the US insisted that, "One: there is no arms race in space. Two: there is no prospect of an arms race in space. Three: the United States will continue to protect its access to, and use of, space."
Introduced by Russia, with Western-aligned and former Soviet state co-sponsorship
Russia revised its resolution on outer space issues, new last year. Reaffirming that the prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger to international peace and security and recalling a UN document from 1993 containing a study by governmental experts on confidence-building measures in outer space (A/48/305 and Corr.1), Russia's revised resolution invites UN Member States to submit to the Secretary-General before [the GA's] sixty-second session [i.e. 2007] concrete proposals on international outer space transparency and confidence-building measures in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. It also requests the Secretary-General to submit a report with an annex including these proposals to that session. Russia again put this issue on the GA's agenda for next year in the final paragraph.
First Committee: 167-1-1
UNGA: 178-1-1
Though it did not make the request this time, Russia may be headed down a step-by-step path towards establishing a group of governmental experts (GGE) to conduct a further study into transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space. In its introduction, it described this year's resolution as a step ahead of last year's, emphasising that it does not limit the legal rights of states to self-defence or their use of outer space. Russia hoped the resolution would garner consensus, but as before, the United States voted against, while Israel abstained.
The Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects [SALW]
Introduced by South Africa, with Colombia and Japan and a wide cross-group co-sponsorship
Following the failure of the 2006 SALW Review Conference to agree on an outcome document, and therefore future meetings, the co-sponsors' made significant changes to this now-annual omnibus resolution on SALW with the aim of picking up the slack. Now in its fifth year, this substantive and practical resolution continues to express its support for the implementation of the 2001 Programme of Action (PoA) and the work of various meetings and working groups, including regional and subregional efforts and the contributions on civil society. With reference to the report of the open-ended working group to negotiate an international instrument to enable states "to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner, illicit small arms and light weapons" (A/60/88 and Corr.2)., the resolution in OP2 calls on all states to implement this international instrument, as it did last year. This year it suggests states do this by providing the Secretary-General with national points of contact and national marking practices. A new OP4 decides that the next biennial meeting of states will be held in New York no later than 2008, and a new OP5 decides that meetings to consider the International Instrument will take place within this framework. This year's version of the resolution elaborates with encouragement of all initiatives and the mobilising of resources and expertise to ensure implementation of the Programme of Action. The original version included slightly stronger language in OP9 and new OP10, which was taken out in the revision. In OP9, which this year begins encouraging states to submit national reports instead of requesting the Secretary-General to gather such data as it did last year, the phrase "at least on a biennial basis" was omitted in the revision. In the new OP 10, which "encourages states to share information on national experiences relating to practical best practices" in implementing the PoA, "in the field of tackling both supply and demand factors" was omitted in the revision.
First Committee: 172-1-0
UNGA: 176-1-0
Following the failed Review Conference in July of 2006, the co-sponsors of this traditionally moderate consensus resolution chose to include a follow-up mechanism to the SALW review process, which the United States insisted on opposing, constituting the sole vote against. In the First Committee's debates, a number of states, including Australia, Suriname, India, Gabon, and Benin, emphasized the value of using biannual meetings to revisit progress made on the Programme of Action.
Some dissatisfaction was expressed that the omnibus resolution did not go far enough, with the suggestion that because of this some states refused to co-sponsor the resolution. The European Union and Switzerland went on record to explain that they did not co-sponsor the resolution because their proposed amendments were rejected. Switzerland had proposed a preambular paragraph inspired by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development. Finland, on behalf of the EU, had proposed two new preambular paragraphs. The first would have noted the continued exchange of views on national and regional practices and lessons learned relating to controls on transfers of SALW, and the second would have encouraged the continued integration of efforts to fight the illicit trade in SALW into national and locals plans and strategies.
Introduced by the United Kingdom, on behalf of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Jamaica and Kenya, with over 100 cross-group co-sponsors
The most discussed and controversial resolution of the 61st First Committee, this new resolution was the product of months of consultations, resulting in several revisions. Originally released by the seven co-authors over the summer, the resolution requests the Secretary-General to establish a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for arms transfers, and to report its findings to the 63rd GA session (in 2008). The first revision included a reference to international human rights law and humanitarian law in PP7, as advocated by the civil society Control Arms Campaign. It also included a new OP1, which requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of states on an ATT, in order to address some governments' concerns about being included in the process. In the final round of revisions, the resolution omitted the word"unrestrained" which had been used to describe arms transfers. It also recognised that the absence of common international standards contributed to "conflict, displacement of people, crime and terrorism, thereby undermining peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development" in a single PP10, instead of two separate PP9 and 10, which referred to being "deeply concerned" about these effects. The final draft also omits PP11 which acknowledged that an ATT would help to prevent illicit arms transfers which would otherwise have increased the potential for conflict, displacement of people, crime and terrorism.
First Committee: OP2: 133-1-26
OP3: 133-1-24
Whole resolution: 139-1-24
UNGA: OP2: 148-1-22
OP3: 148-1-21
Whole resolution: 153-1-24
After months of intensive lobbying on the part of governments and NGOs, the ATT resolution was adopted in the First Committee with 139 votes in favour, one against (the United States) and 24 abstentions in the First Committee, and 153 votes in favour, one against and 24 abstentions in the General Assembly. The abstainers came from the Arab League, although Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon and Tunisia voted in favour in both the First Committee and the GA, and Comoros, Djibouti and Mauritania voted in favour in the GA. Libya, on behalf of the Arab League, said the resolution did not take into account several considerations that would have made it "non-selective" and "comprehensive". Algeria advised that the ATT needed broad-based support and that it must be based on the UN Charter. Cuba, which abstained on the vote in the First Committee because of concerns about the GGE, voted in favour in the GA. In its explanation of vote in the First Committee, Cuba called the resolution "one of the most noble and ambitious resolutions submitted in years".
Several major arms exporters, including China, India, and Russia also abstained. Russia said that because the illegal trade in conventional weapons is the problem, they did not see an obvious need for a treaty on the legal trade. Israel, which also abstained, was concerned that ATT might inhibit self-defence. However, some major and emerging arms exporters, including France, Germany, Serbia and Bulgaria, supported the resolution.
Many of the explanations of abstention called the resolution and its establishment of the GGE "prescriptive". Some states preferred to have the Secretary-General canvass opinions first, and then move forward on the basis of those opinions. Separate votes were therefore called to remove OP2 and OP3, as these refer to the GGE. In the First Committee, Armenia and Jamaica joined the abstainers on OP2, which calls for the GGE. In the GA, the paragraph votes lost abstentions, when Israel voted in favour of OP3 and the Marshall Islands and Lao PDR did not vote.
Introduced by Mali on behalf of ECOWAS, co-sponsored by African states and others
This resolution is now firmly on the FC agenda, and emphasises the problems caused by small arms and light weapons (SALW) for security and development in Africa, most particularly in the Sahelo-Saharan subregion. It supports the ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture of SALW, encouraging the international community to support its implementation. It welcomes the progress made so far, including the 2000 Bamako Declaration on an African Position on the Illicit Proliferation, Circulation and Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons, the 2001 UN Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, the conclusion of the African Conference on the implementation of the Programme of Action in March 2002, and ECOWAS's establishment of a Small Arms Control Programme in June 2006. In 10 OPs, the resolution encourages further regional cooperation and collaboration, among governments, civil society and international organisations, and invites the Secretary-General and states and organisations to provide assistance in curbing the proliferation and trafficking in SALW and collecting them.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
The Economic Council of West African States (ECOWAS) has in place a voluntary moratorium on the importation and manufacture of SALW, and this resolution is intended to highlight the difficulties and invite regional and international participation and support.
Introduced by France and Germany
Put forward for the first time last year, this resolution on ammunition calls this year (OP7) for a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) "to consider further steps to enhance cooperation" on surplus ammunition stockpiles. It builds on the PoA and the report of the SALW marking and tracing Working Group (A/60/88 and Corr.2), which referred to the need for ammunition to be comprehensively addressed, and focuses principally on two aspects: ammunition surpluses and illicit trading in ammunition. In 8 OPs, the resolution wants states to strengthen controls on conventional ammunition, declare ammunition surpluses for destruction, and increase the security of ammunition stockpiles. It does not create any new obligations, but its major operative paragraph calls on "all interested states to assess, on a voluntary bases, whether, in conformity with their legitimate security needs, parts of their stockpiles of conventional ammunition should be considered to be in surplus, and recognizes that the security of such stockpiles must be taken into consideration and that appropriate controls with regard to the security and safety of stockpiles of conventional ammunition are indispensable at the national level in order to eliminate the risk of explosion, pollution or diversion" (OP1, as revised).
First Committee: OP7: 163-2-0
Whole resolution: 164-1-1
UNGA: OP7: 172-2-0
Whole resolution: 175-1-1
In its second year, this resolution lost the co-sponsors' hard-won consensus from last year. The United States was the sole opposition to the resolution as a whole, but was joined by Japan in the separate vote on OP7, which calls for a GGE. Japan then abstained on the resolution as a whole, explaining that while it acknowledged the importance of the issue, it was premature to establish a GGE because states' opinions varied so widely. In familiar concerns, Japan questioned the value of expanding the UN budget to support this GGE. Perhaps to commemorate this rare occasion when they found themselves as the sole companions to the now regular US opposition on disarmament matters, Japanese delegates were observed photographing the voting board on this resolution!
Introduced by Australia with co-sponsorship from Ottawa adherents
Now in its eighth year, this resolution welcomes the entry intro force of the Mine Ban Treaty, the outcome of independent negotiations and government/civil-society partnership, the so-called 'Ottawa Process. As in past years, the resolution reaffirms or recalls a host of previous resolutions, decisions and relevant meetings and calls for full and effective implementation of the treaty, inviting all remaining states to accede without delay. In 10 OPs, it renews its call for states and other relevant parties to work together to remove and destroy anti-personnel mines throughout the world, help mine victims in all necessary ways, and undertake mine risk education programmes. New OP7 urges states to remain seized of the matter at the highest political levels, and promote adherence to the Convention if they can. The resolution also invites and encourages "all interested states, the United Nations, other relevant international organisation or institutions, regional organisations the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and relevant non-governmental organizations" to participate in the programme of intersessional work established at the first meeting and developed at subsequent meetings. In this year's revision, the final OP decides "to remain seized of the matter" instead of putting it back on the agenda for next year.
First Committee: 157-0-15
UNGA: 161-0-17
An ongoing tribute to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the courage of the core group of states that brought this treaty to fruition in 1994-97, the vote on the Mine Ban Treaty is now overwhelming, as one by one the hold-outs accede to the treaty and leave the abstainers behind. This year, the abstainers in the GA were: Cuba, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Palau, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Syria, United States, Uzbekistan, and Viet Nam. As in previous years, countries like South Korea, Morocco, Pakistan, India and Myanmar/Burma explained their abstentions in terms of their defence requirements, long borders etc. Cuba abstained again, and again underlined that though it attached importance to legitimate humanitarian concerns, Cuba has been subject to "continuing aggression and hostility from the American superpower". Pakistan said it would not be able to adhere to the Treaty without a replacement defence system.
Introduced by Sweden with co-sponsorship from the EU and others
This routine resolution supports the CCW and its Protocols, covering non-detectable fragments (protocol I), restrictions on the use of mines, booby traps and other devices (protocol II), prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (protocol III), blinding laser weapons (protocol IV) etc, as well as the decision by the Second Review Conference in December 2001 to extend the scope of the CCW to include "armed conflicts of a non-international character", i.e. civil wars and intra-state uses. In 13 OPs, the resolution calls upon all states who remain outside the CCW to becomes parties as soon as possible and also to be bound by the Protocols of the Convention. It welcomes with satisfaction the adoption of Protocol V on explosive remnants of war (ERW) in 2003 and calls on states to express their consent and be bound by this protocol. It also encourages additional work on related issues, with the possibility of future protocols, and requests the Secretary-General to render any necessary assistance as may be required for the meeting of CCW states parties on November 24-25, 2005, and for follow-up work, as decided by the Second Review Conference.
First Committee consensus
UNGA: consensus
In discussing the CCW, governments focused on the upcoming CCW review conference to be held in Geneva in November 2006, the anticipated entry-into-force of Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War (ERW), the conclusion of the discussion on Mines Other than Antipersonnel Mines (MOTAPM), and the question of negotiating an international, legally binding instrument to address cluster munitions. Although the resolution does not address it, a small group of delegations used the First Committee as an opportunity to urge creating a new legal instrument on cluster munitions at the upcoming CCW Review Conference. Austria speaking on behalf of the Holy See, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, and Sweden, as well as Switzerland, New Zealand, Norway, and the Republic of Korea, urged conclusion to the discussion on mines other than antipersonnel mines (MOTAPM) through the creation of a legally binding instrument. New Zealand proposed 5 key elements which needed to be addressed: the persistent nature of failed cluster munitions; the use of cluster munitions in areas populated by civilians; indiscriminate use that attack both combatants and civilians; the way these weapons kill civilians and destroy civilian objects; and the proliferation and retention of "outmoded" cluster munitions. Austria made clear that "this is not a proposal for a total ban on cluster munitions."
Introduced by Argentina with a large group of co-sponsors.
In its third year, this resolution encourages member states to provide information and engage in dialogue on CBMs in conventional arms, and welcomes the establishment of an electronic database containing information on these issues, which this resolution requested last year, and requests the Secretary-General to keep the database updated and "assist Member States, at their request, in the organization of seminars, courses and workshops aimed at enhancing the knowledge of new developments in this field".
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Introduced by Pakistan
This routine resolution notes recent proposals for disarmament at both the regional and subregional levels and maintains the need for efforts to promote regional disarmament to incorporate the specific characteristics and requirements of each region. It innocuously asserts that efforts towards disarmament must be taken both regionally and globally and welcomes initiatives already taken, and then supports and encourages efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at various levels as well as easing regional tensions.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Introduced by the Rwanda on behalf of the Central African states
This resolution supports the work of the Standing Advisory Committee and promotes CBMs at regional and subregional levels to ease tensions and conflicts and further peace, stability and sustainable development in Central Africa. It supports the establishment of a network of parliamentarians and the creation of a subregional parliament in Central Africa, and requests voluntary funding from governmental and nongovernmental organisations to provide assistance and implementation of the programme of work.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Introduced by Pakistan
Another customary resolution from Pakistan, this stresses the special responsibility of "militarily significant" states "with larger military capabilities" in promoting conventional arms control and regional peace and security. The resolution requests the CD to consider developing principles to serve as a framework for regional agreements, and requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of member states on the subject.
First Committee: 165-1-1
UNGA: 177-1-1
This resolution is targeted at India, so - as in the past - India voted against and Bhutan abstained. India explained that the CD should consider security issues beyond "narrow regional interests". Despite the obvious finger-pointing of this resolution, the issue has wider implications for all other regions. In Europe, for example, the complex Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, which was concluded by NATO and the Warsaw Pact in 1990, has continued to demonstrate its usefulness, despite the fact that it now limits the number of forces and deployments for several countries that have dramatically changed their configurations and politics.
Introduced by Pakistan.
First put forward in 2004, this resolution on its third outing appear unchanged from 2004. It links CBMs with regional concerns, builds on UN resolution 57/337 (July 3, 2003), entitled "Prevention of armed conflict", which calls for states to settle their disputes by peaceful means, including using the ICJ more effectively. It relates disarmament to development, commenting that resources released by disarmament could be devoted to economic and social development and the protection of the environment, and welcomes the peace processes "already initiated in regions to resolve their disputes through peaceful means bilaterally or through mediation by third parties, regional organisations or the UN", noting also that continuing regional disputes may endanger international peace and security and contribute to an arms race. In 9 OPs, the resolution calls for states to refrain from the use or threat of use of force in the settlement of disputes; it calls for dialogue, compliance with bilateral, regional and international arms control and disarmament agreements, and the promotion of bilateral and regional CBMs to avoid conflict and prevent the unintended and accidental outbreak of hostilities. Finally, it is requests the Secretary-General to submit a report containing Member States' views on CBMs to the General Assembly next year.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
In 2003, the vote for this resolution was split, with the NAM voting in favour, outweighed by the combined negative votes and abstentions. It has since been adopted without a vote.
Introduced by Algeria and co-sponsored by a wide cross-group of states in the Mediterranean region and in Europe
This regular resolution takes note of the "indivisible nature" of security in the Mediterranean and that the enhancement of cooperation among Mediterranean states created benefits in the form of economic and social development. It also asserts that the prospects for Euro-Mediterranean cooperation would be enhanced by positive developments in Europe, the Maghreb and in the Middle East. It continues to make note of the need for such states to cooperate in combating terrorism, crime, illicit arms transfers and drug trafficking and requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the means to strengthen security and cooperation in the region.
First Committee consensus
UNGA: consensus
Though accepting consensus, certain key Mediterranean states, including Israel, Syria and Libya, were not among the co-sponsors.
Introduced by the The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Last up in 2004 and arising out of the Balkan wars, this long biannual resolution calls on states, international organisations and the UN to respect the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty and the inviolability of international borders, and urges the investment of further efforts in consolidating South-Eastern Europe as a region of peace, security, stability, democracy, the rule of law, cooperation and economic development. It rejects the use of violence in pursuit of political aims, urges good neighbourliness, and regional development cooperation. It makes particular mention of the seriousness of the problem of anti-personnel landmines in the region and the need to take action against the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Introduced by Sierra Leone
This new resolution directs the 2009 session of the Disarmament Commission (DC) to prepare elements of a draft "Declaration of the 2010s as the Fourth Disarmament Decade" and submit them to the 2009 General Assembly. It recalls resolutions on the First, Second and Third Disarmament Decades (2602 E (XXIV), 35/46, and 45/62) and the Secretary-General's report saying that now is the time to break the deadlock in the disarmament machinery. It recognises the need to mobilise "concerted and more intensive global efforts to reverse the current trend in the field of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation" and the role a fourth disarmament decade could play it so doing. The original version of the resolution scheduled the decade from 2008-2018, instead of the 2010s, as it now stands, and requested the Secretary-General to submit an outline of activities for the decade, based on the views of Member States and NGOs, to next year's GA. The revision omits a longer quote from the Secretary-General in PP3, and the word "significant" which had described the "role a fourth disarmament decade could play" in mobilising global efforts for arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation and international security.
First Committee: 116-1-51
UNGA: 123-1-52
Former chair of the UN Disarmament Commission, Sierra Leone, initiated this proposal to declare a fourth disarmament decade in the 2006 Disarmament Commission, but received little enthusiasm, though the NAM gave its en bloc vote. Though consultations resulted in the resolution being significantly scaled down, giving the task to the DC instead of the GA, the European Union abstained en bloc, explaining that while it appreciated the "intentions and constructive spirit of the proposal" it "remain[ed] to be convinced of the added value of this year's GA setting the agenda for the UNDC session in 2009". The EU critiqued the resolution for overlapping with the resolution calling for a Fourth Special Session on Disarmament (SSOD IV), and reminded the Committee that they "attach great importance to the revitalisation of the First Committee, among other things by reducing the number of resolutions tabled and by making resolutions more operational". Switzerland, which also abstained, made similar points. Cuba, which voted in favour, called the declaration of a fourth disarmament decade "a step forward in multilateralism".
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of the NAM
Following on from similar resolutions in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 this resolution, though refraining from naming names, reflects serious international concerns about the Bush Administration's undermining of multilateral arms control, and emphasises the centrality of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation. It pointedly refers to "the existence of a broad structure of disarmament and arms regulation agreements resulting from non-discriminatory and transparent multilateral negotiations with the participation of a large number of countries regardless of their size and power. While recognising "the complementarity of bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral negotiations on disarmament", it expresses concern at the "continuous erosion of multilateralism" in arms regulation, nonproliferation and disarmament, and says "that a resort to unilateral actions by Member states... would jeopardize international peace and security and undermine confidence... as well as the foundations of the United Nations itself..." In 9 OPs it characterises multilateralism as "the core principle" in disarmament and non-proliferation concerns and negotiations. It underlines the importance of preserving existing agreements, calls on states to renew and fulfil their commitments to multilateral cooperation. In its most controversial paragraph, OP6, it requests the states parties to relevant instruments on WMD "to consult and cooperate among themselves in resolving their concerns with regard to cases of noncompliance as well as on implementation..." and "to refrain from resorting or threatening to resort to unilateral actions or directing unverified noncompliance against one another to resolve their concerns". It also requests the Secretary General to seek states views and report back next year.
First Committee: 117-4-50
UNGA: 120-7-51
The NAM voted in favour, as did Russia and China. the United States opposed, accompanied by various allies or satellites, notably Israel, the United Kingdom, Andorra, Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau. The rest, which included the EU except for Britain, abstained. Albania, Latvia and France, which voted against in the GA last year, abstained on the resolution this year. New Zealand, which spoke also on behalf of Australia and Canada, explained (as they have in previous years) that they had abstained because their concerns were not taken into account. Though they have long promoted multilateralism, they consider it to be a core principle [one of] but not the core principle [sole] as stated in the resolution.
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of the NAM
This resolution, first put forward by Cuba in 1994, emphasises the need to observe environmental norms in both the negotiation and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements. It explicitly refers to "the detrimental environmental effects of the use of nuclear weapons". It calls for unilateral, bilateral, regional or multilateral measures to ensure that environmental and sustainable development considerations are taken into account in relation to scientific and technological progress applied to international security, disarmament and related spheres, and invites states to inform the Secretary-General of measures they have adopted in this regard.
First Committee: 168-1-3
UNGA: 175-1-4
The vote was almost exactly the same as last year, with the United States in opposition. In the GA, France, Israel and the United Kingdom were yet again accompanied by Palau, a small Pacific dependency, in abstaining.
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf on the NAM
This traditional NAM resolution emphasises the importance of the "symbiotic relationship" between disarmament and development. Concerned about increasing global military expenditure, which could otherwise be spent on development needs, it underscores the central role of the United Nations in the disarmament-development relationship, and request the Secretary-General to strengthen this role further, with particular reference to the high-level Steering Group on Disarmament and Development, in order to assure continued and effective coordination and close cooperation between the relevant UN departments, agencies and sub-agencies. The resolution encourages the international community to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to make reference to the contribution that disarmament could provide in meeting them when it reviews progress in 2006, as well as to make greater efforts to integrate disarmament, humanitarian and development activities.
First Committee: 169-1-2
UNGA: 178-1-2
Just as last year, the United States voted against, while Israel and France abstained. The US reiterated its well-known belief that disarmament and development are two distinct issues. Since the US did not participate in the 1987 conference on Disarmament and Development, it does not regard itself as bound by any of its decisions. While the UK supported the resolution, it explained that it did not believe there was an automatic link between disarmament and development. The UK also had some reservations that the recent expert group on disarmament and development did not give sufficient credit to unilateral and bilateral initiatives. Last year it said it agreed with many of the conclusions of the expert group, particularly relating to mainstreaming, demobilisation, small arms and light weapons, anti-personnel landmines and explosive remnants of war
Introduced by the Russian Federation
This resolution was first introduced in 1998 with the intention of highlighting concerns provoked by US plans for missile defence and space control. Though it attracted some reservations, it was initially adopted without a vote, and established a group of government experts (GGE) under UN auspices in 2004 to study "relevant international concepts aimed at strengthening the security of global information and telecommunications systems". In its current form, calling on member states to consider the range of threats to information security, it notes that scientific and technological developments can have dual-use, civilian and military applications, it expresses concern regarding the abuse of information resources and technologies in ways that may "adversely affect the integrity of the infrastructure of states to the detriment of their security in both civil and military fields". The resolution takes note of the report of the GGE (A/60/202) and calls on states to promote further consideration of existing and potential threats relating to information security at multilateral levels. It invites states to inform the Secretary General of their views on the issue, efforts taken to strengthen information security and promote international cooperation and possible measures to strengthen information security at the global level. Most controversially, this resolution requests establishment of a further GGE on this issue in 2009.
First Committee: 169-1-0
UNGA: 176-1-0
The US continued its sole opposition to this resolution, which it first voted against last year. Although it did not explain why it broke consensus, it is understood to have objected most strongly to the proposal to establish another GGE on this issue in 2009, considering this a waste of time and money.
Introduced by India with co-sponsorship of some thirty NAM states
This routine resolution highlights both the civilian and military potential of scientific and technological developments and stresses the importance of encouraging civilian applications. Though it acknowledges the role of dual-use items in the development and upgrading of weapons of mass destruction, the resolution mainly reflects the concerns of a number of NAM states regarding export control regimes, with emphasis on a perceived threat by a self-selected cartel of developed states to the peaceful development rights of others. It declares that the benefits of advances in the civilian sphere should be available to all and urges member states to undertake multilateral negotiations towards this end, with the encouragement of the relevant UN bodies.
First Committee: 107-52-13
UNGA: 108-54-16
As in previous years, most NAM states voted in favour, while states aligned with the Western caucus opposed, objecting that the resolution side-steps the problems of dual use whereby countries evoke peaceful purposes to gain access to technology. Arguing that this also has serious military or weapons implications, the opponents and abstainers regard the resolution as inadequate and potentially in contradiction with the international system of export controls, in which many of them participate.
Introduced by the Netherlands with wide co-sponsorship
This regular resolution emphasises the need for an enhanced level of transparency in conventional armaments. Traditionally a small group of NAM states, mainly from the Middle East, abstain because the UN Register does not include nuclear weapons. This year was no exception, and it was adopted after undergoing seven separate paragraph votes, two more than last year because of new OPs 2 and 3.
The resolution welcomes the Secretary General's "consolidated report" on the UN Register on Conventional Arms (A/60/160 and Corr. 1) - that is, the 2003 report of the GGE that had been established by a previous TIA resolution. It stresses that it is important to review the continuing operation and development of the Register. New PP6 notes, but does not welcome, the focused discussion on TiA in the 2006 CD. OP1 reaffirms determination to ensure the effective operation of the Register. New OP2 endorses the Secretary-General's report on the continuing operation of the register (A/61/159) and the recommendations of the consensus report of the group of governmental experts [GGE] (A/61/261), and new OP3 decides to adapt the scope of the register in conformity with these recommendations. Both were called to a separate paragraph vote, because of resistance to some of the recommendations, particularly the inclusion of small arms and light weapons (SALW) as an official category. The GGE recommended the following: international transfers of conventional arms involving only States Members of the United Nations should be reported to the Register; Member States in a position to do so can report their transfers of SALW on the basis of a standardized form and as part of additional background information; and the reporting threshold for warships (and submarines) be lowered from 750 metric tons to 500 metric tons.
OP4 calls for universal participation, but some states wanted to oppose or abstain on part of the last sentence, which specify "and the recommendations contained in paragraphs 112 to 114 of the 2003 report of the Secretary-General". OP5, the subject of a further paragraph vote, invites member states to provide additional invitation on procurement, including types and models. New OP 6, also subject to a paragraph vote, was part of the preceding paragraph last year, but this year elaborates the invitation to member states to provide additional information on SALW transfers with the new optional standardized reporting form. OP7 reaffirms its decision to keep the scope and participation of the Register under review. The second part of this, OP7b, again required a vote because it called for the Secretary-General to ensure sufficient resources are available for another GGE in 2009. OP9 also proves to be controversial and require a separate vote because it invites the Conference on Disarmament to work on TIA, but which a number of states consider to be an inappropriate demand given its other priorities.
First Committee:
OP2 (endorse GGE): 141-0-21
OP3 (adapt register to GGE recommendations): 140-0-22
OP4 (reference to paras 112-114 of GGE report): 141-0-22
OP5 (invite further information on procurement): 141-0-22
OP6 (invite further information on SALW): 139-0-22
OP7b (resources for GGE in 2009): 141-0-21
OP9 (invites CD to work on TIA) 140-0-22
Whole resolution: 141-0-23
UNGA:
OP2 (endorse GGE): 154-0-21
OP3 (adapt register to GGE recommendations): 153-0-21
OP4 (universalization and reference to paras 112-114 of GGE report): 153-0-21
OP5 (call for further information on procurement etc): 154-0-21
OP6 (invite further information on SALW): 153-0-20
OP7b (resources for GGE in 2009): 154-0-20
OP9 (invites CD to work on TIA): 155-0-20
Whole resolution: 158-0-21
Abstainers included Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. On OP2, which endorsed the recommendations of the GGE, Spain joined the regular abstainers. On OP3, which decided to adapt the register to those recommendations, Myanmar (Burma) joined the abstainers, while Cuba joined them in the First Committee, but voted in favour in the GA. On OP4, which calls for universalization and refers to paragraphs 112-114 of the GGE report), Myanmar and Guinea joined the abstainers, as they did on On OP5, which called for further information on procurements, including types and models. Guinea again joined the abstainers on OP6, which invites further information on SALW, while Cuba abstained in the First Committee but voted in favour in the GA. On OP7b, which called for resources to be made available for a GGE in 2009, only Guinea joined the abstainers. On OP9, which wanted TIA to go back onto the CD's agenda, abstainers were joined again Guinea and Cuba. As regards the whole resolution, Spain voted in favour, while Guinea and Myanmar through their lot in with the regular abstainers. Cuba abstained in the First Committee, but voted in favour in the GA. Pakistan abstained on the resolution as a whole last year but voted in favour this year. The United States voted against the reference in OP2 to paragraphs 112 to 114 of the 2003 GGE report last year, but voted in favour this year.
In explanation, Syria made a statement on behalf of the Arab League, and then emphasised it in an individual statement, calling for the Register to be broadened to include sophisticated weapons, such as nuclear weapons, and arguing on the basis of regional security, with reference to the need for a "more balanced and non-discriminatory" transparency that would cover all Israel's weapon systems. Cuba also said the register should be more balanced and include information on nuclear weapons and technology. Cuba also expressed its interest in being a part of the GGE. China noted that it did not abstain as it did last year, because the problem of the US identifying Taiwan as a recipient of US arms sales had been corrected. China also said that attempts to enforce a uniform level of transparency are inappropriate. Pakistan, which abstained last year, said TiA should not be an end in itself, and that the Register was a first step in confidence-building among states.
Introduced by Germany with a large group of cross-group co-sponsors
With stronger emphasis on small arms and light weapons, the resolution asserts the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach towards certain practical disarmament measures. It notes the importance of the Secretary-General's report and its recommendations for the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures and welcomes the activities undertaken by the Group of Interested States, inviting the Group to "continue to promote...new practical disarmament measures to consolidate peace". Referring to the "synergies within the multi-stakeholder process", the resolution encourages member states to support requests by others regarding the collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons and welcomes the report of the United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education as well as the Secretary-General's reports on the implementation of this resolution.
First Committee: 158-1-0
UNGA: 179-1-0
The United States did not explain why it broke consensus on this resolution for the first time in years.
Introduced by the Mexico with over 30 cross-group co-sponsors
This resolution builds on the UN Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education, which launched its report on October 9, 2002, after two years of consultations, Containing 34 recommendations for actions to be undertaken by governments, educators, and civil society, the study was warmly welcomed in the resolution, which "conveys" its recommendations for implementation by member states. It "requests the Secretary-General to utilise electronic means to the fullest extent possible in the dissemination, in as many official languages as feasible, of information related to that report" and other related information. This year's draft resolution added two new elements to the text from 2004. The most important addition emphasised "that efforts need to be continued to implement the recommendations of the Study and follow the good examples of how they are being implemented to stimulate even further long-term results." The other new element encourages member states, the UN and other international and regional organizations, and civil society and NGOs to continue to apply the recommendations of the Study and continue to report to the SG on steps taken to implement the recommendations.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Introduced by the Mexico with around 25 co-sponsors
This resolution, which has been introduced every other year since 1996, expresses support for the UN Disarmament Information Programme (UNDIP). It takes note of the recommendations in the 2002 study on nonproliferation and disarmament education, and recommends that INDIP should continue to inform and educate, maintain its website and intensify interaction with the public, NGOs and research institutes and focus its efforts on generating public understanding of the importance of multilateral action on disarmament .
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Introduced by Canada
This draft decision, welcomes the update by the Chair of the Panel of Government Experts on Verification in All its Aspects and encourages the Panel to bring its work to a conclusion as soon as possible, and puts the item on the GA agenda next year.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
The Panel did not come to a consensus by the time the First Committee met, but according to the update by its Chair, Dr John Barrett of Canada, delivered to the Committee during its thematic debate, they hoped to be able to agree soon. The Committee decided to give them extra time, as they were technically only required to report back at the 61st session of the GA, which will continue through 2007.
The decision was adopted without a vote, but both Pakistan and Iran raised concerns over the makeup of the panel and the philosophy of verification in general. Pakistan stated that while it went along with the resolution in the spirit of cooperation, it wished to state its disappointment over a perceived imbalance in representation on the GGE, adding, "we hope that adequate representation of all relevant countries would be ensured in any future work on this important issue". Iran expressed concern over the panel's use of email to conduct discussions since its last meeting in August, arguing that the great importance of the panel's work makes it necessary to conduct meetings in person. To date, the General Assembly has not provided extra funds to facilitate another meeting of the GGE. Conversely, Egypt expressed its support for a system for verification in all its aspects, encouraging the GGE to complete its work as soon as possible. Egypt said the General Assembly should encourage this new methodology for future work of GGEs, in order to arrive at a swift consensus. It saw the use of electronic communication after a meeting as a precedent that should be supported because it would promote multilateralism in studying disarmament at the UN.
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of the NAM
After the Open-ended Working Group established in 2006 by a 2004 resolution did not meet because they were unable to find a chair, this resolution tries to establish another Open-ended Working Group to consider the objectives and agenda, including the possible establishment of the preparatory committee, for the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, taking note of previous working groups, proposals and consultations. It requests the Group to meet hold an organisational session to set the date for substantive sessions in 2007, and to report on its work before the end of the 61st session of the GA.
First Committee: 166-1-0
UNGA: 175-1-0
Without explanation, the United States broke consensus on this resolution as well, though others expressed private scepticism about re-establishing a working group that has failed to come to any conclusion.
Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of NAM
Recalls last year's resolution on the maintenance and revitalisation of the three UN regional centres for peace and disarmament, reaffirms the role of educational programmes and the dissemination of information, and appeals to member states to make voluntary contributions to support the regional centres. Also emphasises the importance of the work of the regional branch of DDA and requests the Secretary-General to provide all necessary support - within existing resources - to these three centres.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Introduced by Slovakia as current President of the CD, on behalf of Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, and Senegal, the CD preseidents for 2006.
The annual CD resolution reaffirms the role of the CD as the "single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community" and takes note of the increased deliberation of the Conference, the structured debates, the participation of experts from capitals, and the cooperation among all six Presidents of the Conference.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
The annual report from the world's sole multilateral treaty negotiating body was adopted by the First Committee without a vote, as it always is, but the Committee had interesting and significant exchanges on the future of the CD during the thematic debate on disarmament machinery. Ambassador Zdzislaw Rapacki from Poland, the first president of the 2006 CD, sometimes referred to as the "godfather" of the P6 initiative, suggested one possibility for beginning substantive work in 2007: "At the beginning of the 2007 session, the CD should contemplate making a formal decision or decisions on the establishment of subsidiary bodies (also working groups or expert groups) to negotiate issues that are ripe for it, along with accepting a 'schedule of activities,' which would provide for substantive discussion on all other issues under the CD agenda."
The six presidents submitted a non-paper called "The P6 vision non-paper", presented as 'food for thought', rather than an instruction for next year's presidents. The paper gives a snapshot of where the CD stands on a programme of work, and elaborates suggestions for moving forward. If governments are flexible, they could use some combination of the suggestions in the P6 non-paper to begin substantive work in 2007. In the informal discussion following the panel, delegates expressed the wish to discuss the non-paper further in the inter-sessional period before the 2007 session of the CD begins in January.
Introduced by Ecuador on behalf of states in the region
This routine resolution once again expresses its support for the Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Lima, Peru and related developments and work, especially in education and promoting confidence-building measures, arms control and limitation, disarmament and development at the regional level. In 9 OPs, the resolution congratulates the Regional Centre for the expansion of its activities, encourages further work in disarmament and development, and appeals for additional voluntary funding as well as UN resources to carry out its future programmes.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Introduced by Nepal on behalf of states in the region
This routine resolution commends the "useful activities" of this Regional Centre in encouraging regional and sub-regional dialogue, and welcomes the report of the Secretary-General regarding the continuing validity of the Centre's mandate. It again welcomes the idea of the possible creation of an educational and training programme for peace and disarmament in Asia and the Pacific and highly appreciates Nepal's support as host nation of the Regional Centre's headquarters. The resolution underlines the importance of the Kathmandu process and, as in other resolutions dealing with Regional Centres, appeals to member states, international governmental and nongovernmental organisations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to support the work of the Regional Centre. As in previous years, it also urges the Secretary-General to ensure "the physical operation of the Regional Centre from Kathmandu within six months of the date of signature of the host country agreement."
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Unable to operate physically from Kathmandu because of difficultied of access and security in recent years, the Centre is also now carrying forward the so-called Jeju process, based at the South Korean 'Island of Peace', Jeju, with the aim of furthering peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region.
Introduced by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of African states
This routine resolution commends the activities and reaffirms strong support for the African Regional Centre, and appeals to states, international governmental organisations, NGOs and Foundations to make voluntary contributions in order to strengthen its programmes and activities. It specifically calls for cooperation between the Regional Centre and the African Union, and emphasises the importance of its work in promoting the consistent implementation of the 2001 Programme of Action to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in SALW.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Introduced by Republic of Korea
This resolution, as always, reaffirms the importance of the UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC) and its mandate, dating back to the tenth Special Session of the GA in 1978, as "the specialised, deliberative body within the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery that allows for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations on those issues". The resolution decides to adopt the measures to improve the effectiveness of the Commission's methods of work, reaffirms the importance of enhancing dialogue with the First Committee and the Conference on Disarmament, and requests the DC to meet again to consider the same agenda from April 9-27, 2007.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
After a struggle in the First Committee last year, the DC finally agreed on an agenda for its 2006 session, which it had not been able to do since 2003, and created working groups on nuclear disarmament and confidence building measures in conventional weapons. The working groups were unable to agree on a working paper or any recommendations, though they did conduct relevant discussions. In the plenary meetings, the commission discussed improving the effectiveness of its work, and agreed on recommendations including electing the chair and bureau at least three months before the session begins. In the update to the Committee this year, DC Chair Ambassador Oh said that while this progress was modest, with such an abundance of failure, even modest progress was welcome.
Introduced by Nigeria
This resolution reaffirms past decisions and notes the contribution made by the Fellowship Programme to developing greater awareness of the importance and benefits of disarmament. It recognises the need for member states to take into account gender equality when nominating candidates. The resolution expresses appreciation to member states and particularly to Germany and Japan, for hosting participants of the programme, and also expresses appreciation to the IAEA, OPCW, the CTBTO Preparatory Commission and the Monterey Institute of International Studies. It requests the Secretary-General to continue to implement the Geneva-based programme within existing resources.
First Committee: consensus
UNGA: consensus
Back to the main article: Cooperation and Cautious Optimism: Report on the 2006 UN First Committee, by Jennifer Nordstrom
© 2006 The Acronym Institute.