United Nations First Committee
UN First Committee Update, October 30, 2005
Back to the Main Page on the UN and Disarmament
By Rebecca Johnson
The 60th session of the UN First Committee (Disarmament and International
Security), chaired by Ambassador Choi Young-Jin of South Korea, has adopted
more than 50 resolutions and decisions (see grid below).
With only two days to go, controversial resolutions led by the United
States (on compliance) and Iran (on nuclear disarmament obligations) still
wait to be decided, along with a French-sponsored resolution on problems
related to surplus ammunition stockpiles and a couple of resolutions on
disarmament machinery, such as the embattled UN Disarmament Commission
(UNDC, not to be confused with the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament
(CD)).
After Iran's sudden postponement of the scheduled vote on Friday October
28 of its twice-revised resolution (L.38/Rev.2) entitled "Follow up to
nuclear disarmament obligations agreed in the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences
of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons",
there is growing hope across the political spectrum that this politically
misguided initiative will be withdrawn.
The structure of the UN First Committee makes it difficult to defeat
any resolution that gestures sufficiently towards past agreements, the
rhetoric of a moral high ground (however spurious) or even the blandly
meaningless. Knowing this, Iran introduced a resolution that evokes many
previous declarations and agreements of the Movement of Non-Aligned States
(NAM) and calls for the nuclear weapon states to fulfil obligations they
had undertaken at the NPT Review Conferences of 1995 and 2000. However,
though many might have agreed with the words on the resolution's page,
opponents of nuclear weapons have been just as keen to see this resolution
be withdrawn as those Iran was ostensibly aiming at. Both sides share
the concern that Iran's nuclear programme is designed and intended to
provide a nuclear weapon capability for the future, though they may differ
in how best to deal with this challenge to the non-proliferation regime.
Prior to Friday's expected vote, all indications suggested a large block
vote against this resolution from Western countries, including Japan and
some of the New Agenda Coalition, the sponsors of the two most widely-supported
nuclear disarmament resolutions. NAM members, however, were divided, particularly
after Iran had amended the text to change OP4 from a decision to establish
an ad hoc committee of the General Assembly in 2006 to review NPT obligations
to merely urging NPT states parties to follow up on implementation within
the framework of the 2010 review conference, which they are, in any case,
bound to do. The early text introduced an institutional contradiction
(requiring the GA to follow up on implementation of a treaty that some
GA members were not party to) that gave many a technical excuse for not
voting for the resolution. The revised text offered no such pragmatic
let out. Even so, some intended to vote against, to demonstrate their
concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions and uranium enrichment programme.
Others felt that notwithstanding their reservations about the resolution's
sponsor, they could not vote against a text that stated their own positions.
Some hoped to get away with an abstention; while it cannot be discounted
that some planned to vote in favour not only because they could not disagree
with the text as written but because they were happy to support Iran in
defying the United States and/or the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany).
Following President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's widely-condemned quoting of
a former Iranian religious leader's abhorrent threat against Israel, some
of the resolution's supporters sought to distance themselves from Iran,
with even co-sponsors withdrawing their sponsorship. While no decision
was taken on Friday to withdraw the resolution, Iran's request for a postponement
indicates that there will be some serious rethinking of its position over
the week-end.
The US-sponsored resolution (L.1/rev.2) on "Compliance with non-proliferation,
arms limitation and disarmament agreements" has also undergone substantial
revision to broaden its appeal, and the US hopes that this will be sufficient
to enable it to be adopted without a vote on Monday. The language has
been softened in places, including references to "regional and global
peace, security and stability" (PP3) and "verification and compliance,
and enforcement in a manner consistent with the [UN] Charter" (PP7). In
six operative paragraphs, the resolution urges states to implement and
to comply fully with their respective obligations, urges states not currently
in compliance to "make the strategic decision to come back into compliance";
it underscores that compliance contributes to confidence, security and
stability, and encourages all kinds of efforts "to prevent serious damage
to international security and stability arising from non-compliance..."
Most notably, replacing an earlier paragraph that had commended the "historic"
Libyan example (of deproliferation) to other states, the revised resolution
calls on UN states to "take concerned action in a manner consistent with
relevant international law to encourage, through bilateral and multilateral
means, the compliance by all states with their respective non-proliferation,
arms limitation and disarmament agreements and other agreed obligations
and to hold those not in compliance with such agreements accountable for
their non-compliance in a manner consistent with the Charter of the United
Nations" (OP4).
October 24-28: resolution summary
Over the past week, the Committee has adopted resolutions covering nuclear
disarmament and nuclear-weapon-free zones; other weapons of mass destruction,
including new types of WMD, biological and chemical weapons and prevention
of terrorist acquisition of WMD; other deadly weaponry, including landmines,
small arms and light weapons (SALW), MANPADS; regional security and disarmament
machinery; security and disarmament measures, including a new resolution
from Russia on information and telecommunications, which was opposed only
by the United States, and a new resolution from France on radiological
terrorism which was regarded by some as controversial but which was unopposed
when it was adopted on Friday. With regard to "prevention of an arms race
in outer space" (PAROS), there was for the first time more than one item
under the PAROS cluster - a new resolution from Russia on transparency
and confidence-building measures in outer space. Furthermore, the United
States shocked the co-sponsors of the traditional PAROS resolution by
changing its long-time abstention to a vote against (see below)
The update below only partially touches on some key nuclear disarmament
and outer space resolutions, though the grid gives voting figures for
all resolutions to date. A much fuller analysis, covering also conventional
weapons and other developments, will be published on the Acronym Institute
website and in Disarmament Diplomacy at a later date.
Nuclear Disarmament
Traditionally led by Australia, Mexico and New Zealand, the resolution
supporting the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and calling
for its early entry into force was overwhelmingly passed by 149 votes,
with one against (United States) and four abstentions (India, Colombia,
Syria and Mauritius). The resolution was revised (L.26/rev.1), however,
with omission of a preambular paragraph that had reaffirmed "the importance
of the Treaty for the continued systematic and progressive efforts to
reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating
those weapons, and of general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control". This vote mirrors that of last year,
with similar explanations, which can be found in 2004
UN First Committee: Better Organised, with Deep Divisions, Disarmament
Diplomacy, No.79, April/May 2005.
The two most significant nuclear disarmament resolutions, co-sponsored
respectively by Japan and the New Agenda Coalition, obtained significantly
higher votes than in recent years. Retitled "Renewed determination towards
the total elimination of nuclear weapons", Japan's resolution (L.28**)
expressed regret "over the lack of agreement on substantive issues" at
the 2005 NPT Review Conference and "the elimination of references to nuclear
disarmament and non-proliferation in the 2005 World Summit Outcome". In
13 operative paragraphs, the resolution calls for a series of further
steps to be taken, unilaterally, bilaterally and multilaterally, with
clear reference to the decisions and resolution of the 1995 Review and
Extension Conference of the NPT and the final document of the 2000 NPT
Review Conference. In addition to reducing the operational status and
diminishing the role of nuclear weapons, the resolution takes a strong
stand on the CTBT.
Since Canada decided this year to avoid confrontation with the US (and
Britain) over the 'traditional' Shannon-mandate-based resolution calling
for negotiations on a fissile material treaty, Japan's nuclear disarmament
resolution contains practically the only mention of what until recently
was considered to be a priority non-proliferation objective. Even so,
Japan has emulated recent EU statements by not reiterating the Shannon
mandate and omitting a direct reference to international 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" (OP9).
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).
The vote on Japan's up-dated resolution was 166-2-7. As occurred last
year, only India and the United States voted against. Unlike in recent
years, the New Agenda Coalition voted en bloc in favour. Speaking on behalf
of the NAC, South Africa explained that the 60th anniversary of the bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the failures of the 2005 NPT Conference
and World Summit Outcome had underscored the need for a stronger, more
united effort to achieve nuclear disarmament. Notwithstanding the NAC's
expressed reservations that Japan's resolution should have contained stronger
references to the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states
to eliminate their nuclear weapons and to the practical steps agreed in
2000, all seven voted in favour. NAC member Egypt, which has abstained
on Japan's resolution for several years, made an additional statement
explaining its support even though the resolution "does not meet all Egypt's
positions". In particular, Egypt highlighted its different position on
the Additional Protocol, noting that though it does not oppose fostering
a stronger safeguards system, it has reservations about focussing on its
universalisation, especially since the Additional Protocol "is optional"
and that Egypt was "not prepared to take on additional obligations when
one state in the region [Israel] insists on remaining outside the NPT".
France and the UK joined a block EU vote in favour of Japan's nuclear
disarmament resolution. Abstainers were China, North Korea, Israel, Myanmar/Burma,
Pakistan, Bhutan and Cuba.
The NAC resolution, entitled "Towards a nuclear-free world: Accelerating
the implementation of nuclear disarmament" (L.4) also received stronger
support than in recent years, as more EU and NATO felt that support for
nuclear disarmament needed to be underscored this year (60th anniversary
of nuclear weapons being used; failures of the 2005 NPT Review Conference
and World Summit Outcome; and also, perhaps, to leave no doubt about the
meaning of their intended votes against Iran's resolution on nuclear disarmament
obligations).
The NAC put forward a relatively short resolution 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", rather than listing
or updating all the practical steps identified in the 2000 disarmament
programme of action.
A separate vote was taken on OP4, which called on India, Israel and Pakistan
by name to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states. The vote on
this was: 148-3-9. Unsurprisingly, India, Israel and Pakistan all opposed,
while the United States, France, Britain and (bizarrely, some might think)
Australia, Micronesia, Mauritius, Jamaica and Cameroon abstained.
The vote on the whole resolution was 144-5-19. (This compares favourably
with last year, when 135 supported.) A significant number of NATO states
voted in favour. Opposition was registered by Britain, France, the United
States, India and Israel. The abstainers included Russia, Pakistan and
Australia, and an odd assortment of European or former Soviet states,
including Albania, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia (sad, since
it was one of the original eight nations whose foreign ministers made
the New Agenda declaration in June 1998), Spain and FYRO Macedonia, as
well as Bhutan and Micronesia (of course), whose semi-colonial masters
seldom permit them to make independent decisions on such votes).
Outer Space
This year, two resolutions were considered under the heading of "Outer
Space (Disarmament Aspects). Both were overwhelmingly adopted. In both
cases, only the United States voted against, while Israel abstained.
Sri Lanka introduced the traditional PAROS resolution this year. Even
though its text was unchanged from last year's apart from updating the
date to 2006 in its call for PAROS work to commence in the CD, the United
States this year decided to vote against, much to the surprise of the
co-sponsors, who had expected it to abstain as it has for a number of
years. Nevertheless, the resolution was overwhelmingly adopted on Tuesday
by 160-1-1. Israel, which has in past years joined the US in abstaining,
continued to abstain, despite the negative US vote.
The PAROS 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" 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 2006
session.
In an interesting development, Russia introduced a new resolution on
outer space issues. Originally entitled "Measures to promote transparency
and confidence-building in outer space", Russia's resolution was substantially
revised and renamed "Transparency and confidence-building measures in
outer space activities" (L.30/rev.1). 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 twelve years ago
containing a study by governmental experts on confidence-building measures
in outer space (A/48/305 and Corr.1), Russia's revised resolution invites
[weaker than the original "requests"] UN Member States to "inform the
Secretary-General before [the GA's] sixty-first session [i.e. 2006] of
their views concerning the advisability of further developing 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". Russia's
intention to pursue this further is clearly indicated in the final paragraph,
which puts this issue on the GA's agenda for next year. This is likely
to be the first step towards establishing a group of governmental experts
to conduct a further study into transparency and confidence-building measures
in outer space.
The resolution was overwhelmingly adopted on Friday by 158-1-1. As with
the PAROS resolution, the United States voted against, while Israel abstained.
Missiles
All three amendments proposed by Iran to the resolution supporting the
Hague Code of Conduct (HCoC) against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (L.22)
were rejected, and the HCoC resolution was then overwhelmingly adopted
by 151-1-11. The amendments (L.62) had been co-sponsored by Egypt, Indonesia
and Malaysia.
A separate draft decision from Iran on "Missiles", which related to two
recent UN studies by groups of governmental experts, was adopted earlier
in the week by 101-2-50. That vote had split mostly on group lines, with
most of the NAM voting in favour, and most of the Western group (WEOG)
et al abstaining.
Resolutions Index
Latest update October 30, 2005
Note: the name of the state that introduced the resolution is
in square brackets. Where separate votes were taken on parts of a resolution,
PP refers to preambular paragraph and OP refers to operative paragraph.
Votes are given as: for-against-abstention
The results of further votes will be added as we receive them.
Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Weapons, Missiles and Outer Space
Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
Other Weapons of Mass Destruction
Outer Space (Disarmament Aspects)
Conventional Weapons
Regional Disarmament & Security
Other Disarmament Measures and International Security
Disarmament Machinery
Sources:
Back to the Top of the Page
© 2005 The Acronym Institute.
|
