UN First Committee

2007 First Committee Resolutions

Nuclear Weapon Free Zones

Back to the Index of Resolutions

UNGA 62/18 (L.1) Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East

Introduced by Egypt.

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

First Committee: without a vote
UNGA: without a vote

The language of this resolution is moderate and balanced in order to ensure its adoption without a vote. Following what has become tradition, Israel explained its decision to once again join consensus on this resolution despite its substantive reservations. Israel's Ambassador explained that her country supports the vision of a Middle East free of both weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, reiterating Israel's longstanding position that they would only consider joining a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. In their view, this would be a gradual process beginning with confidence-building measures and followed by the restoration of peaceful relations after a track record of good neighborliness.

The Israeli representative also explained that Israel would continue to maintain consensus on the resolution, despite the circumstances regarding a complementary resolution annually adopted by the IAEA General Conference on the universal application of comprehensive safeguards in the Middle East. At the 2006 session of the IAEA General Conference, the Arab states broke the tradition of deferring action on a provocative agenda item entitled, "Israeli nuclear capabilities and threat," although no vote was ultimately taken due to a successful motion by Canada to close debate. In retaliation for the Arab move, Israel broke consensus on the aforementioned resolution on safeguards, calling for a vote and subsequently opposing the resolution. The Arab states continued to push forward this controversial agenda item at the 2007 session of the IAEA General Conference, prompting a similar outcome as last year.

Back to the top of page

UNGA 62/ (L.2)
The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East

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

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

First Committee: 164-3-6
First Committee PP6: 161-3-6
UNGA: 170-5-7
UNGA PP6: 166-3-6

In recent years, this traditionally contentious resolution has attracted increasing reservations, if only verbally, for its failure to incorporate concerns regarding Iran's nuclear programme. Despite its title, the resolution, unchanged in recent years, focuses on the need to universalize the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and singles out Israel in this context. Several Western delegations, including Canada and the European Union, suggested that the title is misleading, as the resolution does not address concern over Iran's nuclear programme, leading these delegations and others to question its balance. The Australian and Swiss delegations also expressed concern over Iran's failure it implement its obligations under Security Council resolution 1696, 1737, and 1747. Despite these concerns, most delegations-164 in the First Committee-stand in favour of the content of the resolution and thus vote in favour. The three negative votes in the First Committee were cast by the United States, Israel, and Micronesia.

As in past years, there was a separate vote on PP6, which makes reference to the final document of the NPT 2000 Review Conference and calls for universal adherence to the Treaty, as well as strict compliance by all parties with their obligations. In the First Committee, negative votes on this paragraph came from India, Israel, and the United States. Bhutan, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Pakistan, and Uganda abstained.

Back to the top of page

UNGA 62/16 (L.10) Consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco)

Introduced by Mexico.

Last introduced in 2005, this resolution welcomes the Tlatelolco Treaty's entry-into-force for all countries in the region and encourages states that have not yet done so to ratify amendments to the Treaty agreed to by the General Conference of the Agency for the Prohibition of the Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean. A new preambular paragraph notes the fortieth anniversary of the opening of the treaty for signature and a new operative paragraph urges states to implement agreements reached at the first conference of states parties held in April 2005.

First Committee: without a vote
UNGA: without a vote

The Mexican delegation announced the cosponsors had decided to triannualise this resolution, stating it will next be introduced at the 65th session of the General Assembly in 2010.

Back to the top of page

UNGA 62/31 (L.19//Rev.1)
Treaty on Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Bangkok Treaty)

Introduced by Indonesia on behalf of the states parties to the Bangkok Treaty.

This new resolution, introduced on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the entry-into-force of the Bangkok Treaty, recalls the 2005 New Agenda Coalition resolution and the 2006 resolution on a nuclear weapon free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas. The preambular portion of the resolution also places emphasis on the responsibilities of nuclear weapon states in supporting the disarmament process and, by signing the Protocol of the Treaty, in providing legally-binding negative security assurances and respecting the status of the zones. It also contains language reaffirming principles of international law pertaining to the freedom of the high seas, intended to assuage concerns of nuclear weapons that continue to have reservations about the Treaty and its Protocol. The ostensible purpose of the resolution is contained in its second and third operative paragraphs, which encourage state parties and the NPT nuclear weapon states to resume consultations and to work constructively to resolving outstanding issues related to provisions of the Protocol. The resolution also welcomes the commitment of the Commission for the Treaty in adopting a five year Plan of Action for implementation of the Treaty.

First Committee: 161-1-4
UNGA: 174-1-5

The purpose of the resolution, co-sponsored by ASEAN, was to support the intention of state parties to resume consultations with nuclear weapon states on acceding to the Protocol to the Treaty and thereby granting legally-binding negative security assurances to the parties. This resolution had to undergo revision in order to avoid opposition by nuclear weapon states. The revised text strengthened language on freedom of the high seas and modified language that singled out the need for nuclear weapon states to work constructively toward ensuring their accession to the Protocol, also placing onus on the state parties to achieve this. The sponsors also deleted a provocative paragraph calling on nuclear weapon states to provide declarations that they will not violate the Treaty pending their accession to the Treaty's protocol.

Despite these changes to accommodate the positions of the nuclear weapon states, the US delegation still felt compelled to cast the single vote against the resolution as they felt it was not an issue appropriate for the First Committee. The US representative explained, however, that they understood the purpose of the resolution was to call for resumption of consultations, further indicating the willingness of the United States to rejoin the process. France and the United Kingdom abstained. Speaking on behalf of the two states, the French delegation also expressed readiness to rejoin consultations and were awaiting the state parties to begin the process, which had been broken off since 2005. The two other abstentions came from Andorra and Israel. Speaking after the vote, the Chinese delegation stated its support for the efforts of ASEAN, noted that China had reached agreement on the Protocol, and expressed hope that ASEAN would be able to resolve outstanding issues with the other nuclear weapon states.

Back to the top of page

UNGA 62/15 (L.26)
African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty

Introduced by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of African States.

This biennial resolution goes back to 1996 when the Pelindaba Treaty was signed in Cairo and is unchanged from the last time it was introduced in 2005. It supports the establishment of the African NWFZ, calls on the relevant states that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Pelindaba Treaty so that it can enter into force without delay, and also to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA, as required. It expresses its appreciation to the NWS that have signed the Protocols that concern them and calls on those that have not yet ratified the Protocols concerning them to do so as soon as possible.

First Committee: without a vote
UNGA: without a vote

Despite the fact that the sponsors made no changes to the text, Spain did not follow through with its threat in 2005 to block consensus and, as in previous years, allowed this resolution to go through despite its opposition to operative paragraphs two and three. In its statement before the vote, Spain stressed that it supports the general objectives of the Pelindaba Treaty, but that "Spanish territory" (namely Ceuta, Melilla, and the Canary Islands, which lie within the NWFZ declared by the Pelindaba Treaty) should not have been included in the area covered by the African NWFZ. Spain announced it had decided not to sign Protocol 3 of the Treaty, as the Protocol does not contain any non-proliferation or disarmament provisions that Spain has not already signed on to. In this context Spain specifically cited its adherence to EURATOM and IAEA safeguards, which in its view contain provisions that go considerably beyond those contained in the Pelindaba Treaty. The Spanish delegation clarified that they do not want to change the text of the resolution, but rather just the two paragraphs of the resolution and that they would continue consultations on the matter.

Back to the top of page

UNGA 62/35 (L.27)
Nuclear weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas

Introduced by New Zealand.

The resolution, which has been led by Brazil and New Zealand since 1996 and co-sponsored by a wide cross section of southern hemisphere states, calls for the ratification of all nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties and their protocols, as relevant. It places this call in the context of the determined pursuit of "the total elimination of nuclear weapons" and "the important role of NWFZ in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime." It 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 the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, but as the votes reflect, this paragraph has failed to bring the skeptical NWS on board. Using the traditional language associated with NWFZs, it "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." The current version of the resolution does not repeat last year's welcoming of the Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty, as that particular NWFZ is located entirely outside the southern hemisphere. The resolution is otherwise unchanged from previous years.

First Committee: 162-3-7
First Committee last three words of OP6: 154-2-9
First Committee OP6: 156-1-8
UNGA: 169-3-8
UNGA OP6: 163-1-8
UNGA last three words of OP6: 163-1-9

Repeating the now-familiar routine, France, the UK, and the US opposed this resolution, citing fears about its impact on the law of the sea, and India called for both a vote on OP6, and separately on its last three words "and South Asia". As usual, the UK, the US, and France delivered their explanation of vote together-this year delivered by the French-citing concerns about conflict with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or other norms and international laws relating to navigation. This year, the French suggested the resolution was out of step with the 1999 UNDC guidelines on NWFZs, and expressed the readiness of the three states to engage in further consultations on this matter. All three states transport either nuclear weapons or nuclear materials, or transit nuclear powered vessels 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.

Repeating the other annual ritual related to this resolution, 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 OP6, which only India and Pakistan oppose. India then voted against OP6 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, Micronesia, and Russia. Spain, which abstained last year, voted in favour. Essentially duplicating its statements from previous years, India declared that OP6 was inconsistent with the understanding that NWFZ must be freely arrived at by the states concerned, and queried why South Asia was singled out.

Back to the top of page

Back to the Index of Resolutions

© 2007 The Acronym Institute.