United Nations First Committee and the Conference on Disarmament

Back to the main page on the First Committee

UN First Committee 2004

Voting commenced on the UN First Committee resolutions on October 26, 2004

Rebecca Johnson

Five resolutions and 2 draft decisions were adopted when the UN First Committee commenced voting on October 26. There was much debate and split voting on two resolutions dealing with missiles, which some viewed as complementary and others considered to be essentially rivals. L.50 on the Hague Code of Conduct on Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCoC) was introduced by Chile on behalf of 114 or the HCoC's 117 members. Three amendments sponsored by Iran were defeated and the HCoC resolution was then overwhelmingly adopted by 137 votes to 2, with 16 abstentions. Iran and Egypt voted against, arguing that the HCoC is deficient in the areas of peaceful uses, cooperation and assistance, it ignores cruise missiles "which are the most common type of missiles in terms of use and proliferation", and addresses only ballistic missiles without addressing them as a means of delivery for nuclear weapons. Most particularly, Egypt said it was concerned that in dismissing the amendments, the HCoC co-sponsors had voted "against a positive role for the United Nations...[and] against further steps towards the further development of the HCoC..."

Iran accused the co-sponsors of the HCoC resolution of having a "leave it or take it" approach. Although by fewer votes, in fact Iran's resolution on missiles 'in all its aspects', L6/Rev.1, which called for further UN-based studies, was also adopted, by 98:2:60. The voting records show that Chile and a significant number of NAM countries voted in favour of both resolutions, as Sudan pointed out.

The United States and Israel opposed Iran's resolution, while a large bloc of mostly NATO and EU countries abstained. Speaking on behalf of the EU and associated states, the Netherlands underlined that "our abstention must not be regarded as a lack of commitment... on the contrary the EU is convinced the proliferation of ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction puts at risk the security of all states and peoples... as well as cruise missiles and UAV are a growing cause of concern within the EU...[but] the EU remains of the opinion that another panel of experts would only be meaningful if based on an agreed specific mandate which ensured that added value could be offered..."

While the sponsors accused each other of making no or inadequate reference to the approach favoured by their own resolution a significant number of states voted for both resolutions. This group included some who had voted down the Iranian-Egyptian amendments to L.50. Some HCoC members, like Japan and South Korea, abstained on L.6/Rev.1. Giving an explanation similar to the previous year, Japan said it had participated in the first of the two panels on missiles, but objected to L.6/Rev.1 because it contained no acknowledgement of the ongoing process towards universalisation of the HCoC and no explicit reference to the proliferation of missiles as delivery vehicles for WMD. The Republic of Korea had participated in the second panel, which had been unable to adopt a final report, and they were sceptical of the proposal to convene another panel "due to the fundamental differences in perceptions and views... among states" which were unlikely soon to be dissipated. Some specifically rejected the interpretation that opponents of Iran's amendments were against further development of the HCoC or a role for the United Nations. In further explanations of votes, China said that though it had not joined HCoC, it would continue in its consultations. China voted in favour of both resolutions, and emphasised that the UN should also be fully utilised. Russia also voted in favour of both, arguing that the most appropriate forum for dealing with missiles was the UN, as Russia had proposed in its Global Control System (GCS), but on the other hand, the HCoC was the "first real step towards countering ballistic missiles".

The traditional resolution on "Establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone in the region of the Middle East" was adopted without a vote. Israel joined this, explaining that the nuclear issue must be dealt with in the context of the peace process, and that any establishment of a NWFZ "should be based on arrangements freely arrived at among all the states in the region concerned... through direct negotiations between the states in the region after they have recognised each other and have established full peaceful and diplomatic relations between them..."

A procedural draft decision on "Establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone in Central Asia", (L.7) introduced by Uzbekistan on behalf of 5 Central Asian republics, was adopted without a vote.

Mexico's draft decision on a "UN conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament" (L.15) did not go through by consensus, but was adopted by 119 to 6, with 41 abstentions. The opponents were Britain, the United States, France, Israel, Poland and Monaco.

A traditional resolution sponsored by India on "Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons" (L.29) garnered its usual split vote: 111:46:12. Similarly India's resolution on "Reducing Nuclear Danger" (L.30), first introduced in 1998 after India had conducted a series of nuclear tests, received 106:46:16. In both cases, most of the NAM were in favour, while NATO/EU and associated states were opposed.

I will be putting more detail up on our website, time permitting.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2004 The Acronym Institute.