|
United Nations First Committee and the Conference on DisarmamentBack to the main page on the First Committee UN First Committee 2004UN First Committee votes on October 28, 2004.Rebecca Johnson On October 28, the UN First Committee adopted a further 9 resolutions, the most controversial of which were L.22 sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition, entitled "Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament comitments" and L.23, from Japan, entitled "A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons", as well as Malaysia's resolution (L.39) calling for a nuclear weapon convention, which is titled "Follow up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons". Most of the remaining resolutions dealt with disarmament machinery (the UNDC, CD, more regional centres, strenthening cooperation and so on), and adopted without a vote. Though not all were uncontroversial, they will be covered in a later update. Due to other work commitments, this is just a preliminary report to provide voting figures on the three controversial nuclear weapons-related resolutions. The explanations given for the votes will be provided over the weekend, with fuller analysis in my final report. Changing tack from the omnibus resolutions of recent years (last year's, for example, contained 30 operative paragraphs), the New Agenda Resolution in 2004 is short and innocuously worded with the purpose of providing a constructive context and garnering maximum support in the run-up to the 2005 NPT Review Conference. It recalls the unequivocal undertaking given by the NWS to eliminate nuclear weapons at the 2000 Review Conference, while also noting that the ultimate objective of the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control. In only 8 operative paragraphs, the resolution calls on all states to "fully comply with commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and not to act in any way that may be detrimental to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation or that may lead to a new nuclear arms race". States were also called on to "accelerate the implementation" of the practical steps for nuclear disarmament agreed in 2000 and to resume fissban negotiations in the CD on the basis of the 1995 (Shannon) Mandate. The principles of irreversibility and transparency, as well as verification, were underlined as "imperative", and the resolution called for the CD to establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament. Although the NAC did not sponsor a separate resolution this year on non-strategic nuclear weapons, they called on the NWS "to take further steps to reduce their non-strategic nuclear arsenals and not to develop new types of nuclear weapons, in accordance with their commitment to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies." Before it could be adopted, a request was made for a separate vote on OP2 (presumably by India or Pakistan), which called on states to "spare no efforts" to achieve universal adherence to the NPT and early entry into force of the CTBT. The vote on this paragraph was 153 in favour, 4 against, with 5 abstentions. The votes against were India, Israel, the United States and - to the surprise of many - France, although it is a party to the NPT and has ratified and fully supports the CTBT. The abstainers included Mauritius, Bhutan, Uzbekistan, Monaco, and Pakistan. When the whole resolution, including OP2, was adopted, the vote was 135:5:25. Voting against were United Kingdom, US, France, Israel and Latvia. Abstainers included Russia, Spain, Portugal, Australia, India, Italy, Iceland, Denmark, Poland, Slovenia and Hungary and a number of other former Eastern-bloc new NATO members or applicants. China and Pakistan both voted in favour, as did most of the NAM, although some were concerned that the resolution had been diluted or weakened too far. Of particular importance, a number of NATO states braved US displeasure - which had been forcefully conveyed at meetings here in New York and demarchés in capitals - to vote in favour. These were: Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Luxembourg and Turkey. It was also noted that Japan this year voted in favour of the NAC resolution, as did South Korea. Japan's traditional nuclear disarmament resolution supporting the NPT was long and detailed. It supported the agreements adopted in 2000 and described the 13 steps (but with some alterations, accounting for some of the abstentions). It was resoundingly adopted by 151 votes, with 2 opposed (India and the United States) and 16 abstentions (which included the NAC, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Iran, Bhutan, Malta, Cuba, Myanmar(Burma) and DPRK). Once again, the principal reason for the US opposition to its ally's moderate, NPT-reinforcing resolution was Japan's call for early entry into force of the CTBT and for a verifiable fissile material ban. Malaysia's resolution on the advisory opinion of the ICJ, which has been annual since 1996, received an overall vote of 118 to 28 with 21 abstentions. As in past years, a separate vote was called on OP1, which "underlines once again the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmaemnt in all its aspects under strict and effective international control". This received overwhelming support from 156 states, with 3 against and 5 abstentions. Israel, Russia and the United States voted against. The abstainers were: Britain, France, Belarus, Latvia and Uzbekistan. Details of explanations of votes and the other resolutions adopted today will follow when time permits.
© 2004 The Acronym Institute. |