United Nations First Committee and the Conference on Disarmament

Back to the main page on the First Committee

UN First Committee 2004

UN First Committee votes on October 27, 2004

Rebecca Johnson

October 27 saw the UN First Committee romp through 19 resolutions and 1 draft decision, covering nuclear and chemical weapons, PAROS, conventional weapons, regional issues, environmental norms, development, as well as various resolutions relating to UN bodies and machinery. This is a brief preliminary summary only, FYI. As we have done during the past 10 years, the Acronym Institute will be providing a detailed analysis and summary of all the resolutions and developments (on website and Disarmament Diplomacy) after the General Assembly votes on the resolutions in December. See www.reachingcriticalwill.org for the actual text of the First Committee resolutions and statements.

First up was the resolution on "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East" (L.37), introduced by Egypt. Where yesterday's resolution calling for a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East was adopted by consensus, this resolution - as in past years - points the finger more directly and specifically at Israel, calling for Israel's accession to the NPT "without delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons…". First there was a split vote on one of the preambular paragraphs (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: PP6 was adopted by 154:3:4. Israel, India and the United States opposed, while Pakistan, Mauritius, Bhutan and Papua New Guinea abstained. The whole resolution was then adopted by 157 votes to 4 with 8 abstentions. The no-voters were Israel, Micronesia, Marshall Islands and the United States.

In a statement very similar to the one made last year, Israel called L.37 "biased" and "an abuse of reality and misuse of the UN" and said that "singling out Israel is counter productive to confidence building and peace in the region and does not lend this body any credibility". Referring obliquely to revelations about the nuclear programmes of Iran and Libya, Israel condemned the resolution for its "neglect of the fact that the real risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East emanates from countries that, despite being parties to international treaties do not comply with their relevant international obligations".

While the EU voted en bloc in favour of the resolution, Australia, Canada and Ethiopia joined India, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago, Cameroon and Nauru in abstaining. Australia explained that while it supported a NWFZ in the Middle East and had consistently called on Israel to accede to the NPT, it had a number of problems with L.37 and was concerned that there was no reference to Iran's proliferation activities.

As in past years, Pakistan's long resolution (L.44) on negative security assurances (NSA) saw a large bloc of mostly NATO, EU and associated states abstain because NSA were de-linked from adherence to the NPT and called for negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on an NSA convention. The vote was 109 (mostly NAM), with no votes against and 61 abstentions. Clearly with an eye on its neighbour to the North, South Korea said it had abstained because security assurances should not be provided to all non-nuclear weapon states party to the NPT regardless of their behaviour.

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) (L.16), introduced by Poland, was endorsed without a vote, but a resolution entitled "Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol" (L.12*), introduced by Malaysia on behalf of the NAM, required a vote. Last addressed 2 years ago, this resolution welcomes that three more states have withdrawn their reservations to the Protocol, and calls upon states that continue to maintain reservations to the Protocol to withdraw them. It was adopted by 165:0:3 (the abstainers were the United States, Israel and the Marshall Islands).

L.36 on "Prevention of an arms race in outer space" (PAROS), introduced by Egypt, passed overwhelmingly with 167 votes in favour, higher than in 2003. Noting "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", this resolution 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" and 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 2005 session. The vote was 167:0:2. Instead of voting against, as it did all alone last year, the United States abstained - as did Israel - but neither gave any explanation. (See also: PAROS discussions at the 2004 UN First Committee, by Rebecca Johnson, October 20, 2004.)

A draft decision (L.48) on "problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus" was adopted without a vote. Also adopted without a vote were resolutions on confidence-building measures (CBM) in Central Africa, introduced by Equatorial Guinea (L.3); a resolution from Argentina on "Information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms" (L.52); and a resolution from the Netherlands on "national legislation on the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology" (L.5); and a Russian-sponsored resolution on "developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security" (L.2/Rev.1). Three resolutions supporting UN regional centres for peace and disarmament (L.9) were also adopted without a vote, encompassing the centres in Latin American and the Caribbean (L.18), in Asia and the Pacific (L.20). A resolution from Mexico supporting the UN Disarmament Information Programme (L.51) was given consensus. Cuba said it had supported L.5 but that national legislation should be viewed as supplementing and implementing multilaterally negotiated instruments and legally binding treaties; only the framework of international treaties can provide a guarantee against selective, discriminatory practices.

Pakistan was lead sponsor for two resolutions on regional disarmament. The more moderately-worded resolution on "regional disarmament" (L.47) which calls in general terms for complementary global and regional approaches, was adopted without a vote. Arguing for "balance in [the] defence capabilities" and "agreements to strengthen regional peace and security at the lowest possible level of armaments and military forces", L.46 on "conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels" was more obviously directed at Pakistan's larger and better-armed neighbour. The vote was 165 in favour, 1 against (India) and 1 abstention (Bhutan).

A resolution on the UN Disarmament Commission (L.42*) was adopted without a vote but not without protest. The US stated for the record that it did not participate in the decision, and Canada and EU expressed strong reservations. The Netherlands said that the EU considered the UNDC "an important deliberatively body aimed at promoting fruitful multilateral dialogue in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation" but expressed "deep disappointment" that it had failed yet again to reach agreement on substantive agenda items. The EU called for a more "constructive and realistic" approach to the UNDC's work in order to "promote topical, concrete and useful recommendations". In similar language, Canada expressed deep disappointment at both the UNDC's failure and this "hollow" resolution, and warned that the UNDC was in danger of losing interest and credibility. Egypt also regretted that the UNDC meetings were "wasted" by procedural matters despite NAM attempts to get substantive issues addressed.

The US was the sole vote against two resolutions introduced by Malaysia on behalf of the NAM that were overwhelmingly adopted by 165 states. The vote on L.10 on "Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control" was 165:1:3. On L.28 "Relationship between disarmament and development", the vote was 165:1:2. On a further resolution from India with the title "the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament" (L.32), which side-steps the problems of dual use whereby countries evoke peaceful purposes to gain access to technology that also has serious military or weapons implications, the vote was divided: 101:49:17. Many NAM countries voted in favour, while the EU/NATO and associated states opposed.

Noting that the environmental resolution had not changed in four years, the United States argued that there was no direct connection between general environmental standards and arms control and disarmament, and that concern for the environment should not lead to overburdening crucial negotiations; nor should the UN set standards for arms control and disarmament agreements - that is for the states concerned to do. The US also voted against L.28 because it believes that disarmament and development are two separate issues. The US did not participate in the UN Conference on disarmament and development and does not consider itself bound by its findings. By contrast, the UK said it had supported L.28 because it agreed with many of the conclusions of the recent expert group on disarmament and development, particularly relating to mainstreaming, demobilisation, small arms and light weapons, anti-personnel landmines and explosive remnants of war. The UK supported the Group's conclusion that the relationship between disarmament and development was complex, but could not accept its conclusion that there had been little progress on nuclear disarmament. Saying that "the UK maintains a minimum deterrent and continues to work towards disarmament", the British ambassador, John Freeman, said that the resolution had not given sufficient credit to unilateral, bilateral and multilateral measures for disarmament and nonproliferation, as recognised in the final document from the NPT's 2000 Review Conference.

In a final vote, L.11 on "Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation", sponsored by the NAM, received 109 votes in favour with 9 against, and 49 abstentions. The Netherlands explained the abstention of the EU and associated states, saying that though they were convinced that "a multilateralist approach to security, including disarmament and non-proliferation, provides the best way to maintain international order and… to… uphold, implement and strengthen the multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements", the resolution was "unbalanced" and contained elements that the EU could not support. In particular, the EU "believes that unilateral, bilateral and multilateral actions in disarmament and non-proliferation… bring… positive results." Since these were not given sufficient credit in the resolution, the EU abstained. For similar reasons Canada also abstained, arguing that it believes multilateralism is a core principle but not the core principle as stated in the resolution. Canada also objected to the tone of the resolution, viewing it as "restrictive", and emphasised the importance of unilateral and bilateral approaches, complaining that these concerns were not acknowledged.

Back to the Top of the Page