United Nations First Committee
UN First Committee Update, October 31, 2005
Back to the Main Page on the UN and Disarmament
By Rebecca Johnson
- Iran's resolution (L.38/Rev.2) on disarmament obligations is amended
again (orally) to include stronger language on the Middle East and then
adopted by one of the smallest margins in First Committee history.
- US resolution on compliance fails to achieve consensus. The vote
is 137-0-11.
- The French-German resolution introduced by France on ammunition stockpiles
is finally adopted without a vote after a problem with the US is resolved.
- Some additional resolutions on disarmament machinery are adopted
without a vote.
Three resolutions for Tuesday November 1 (last day of the First Committee):
- L.50/Rev.1 on Transparency in armaments
- L.59.Rev.1 on the Report of the UN Disarmament Commission, and
- L.60 the Question on Antarctica. Consideration will also be given
to agreeing the basis for work of next year's First Committee.
* please note that explanations given below are from my contemporaneous
notes, some of which were of orally interpreted interventions by rapidly-speaking
diplomats. As almost no texts were available, these notes are as accurate
as I can manage but should not be taken as definitive.
Iranian resolution on disarmament obligations
After intensive consultations over the weekend to shore up waning support
from NAM states, Iran decided not to withdraw its resolution, 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". Instead, Iran orally introduced a new amendment,
strengthening the language of PP6 with the following "Reaffirming the
resolution on the Middle East adopted on 11 May 1995 by the parties to
the Treaty in which it also reaffirmed the importance of the early realization
of the universal adherence to the Treaty and placement of nuclear facilities
under full-scope IAEA safeguards". After a short break so that some states
could consult on this, the resolution was taken.
Revealing the high risk of this game playing by Middle East and NAM votes,
a separate vote on this new PP6 only just avoided being defeated. It passed
by 58-54-22. The whole resolution was then adopted by 70-52-22.
In explanations of vote, the United States argued that the resolution
had "completely missed its mark" and that Iran had sought to "conceal
itself under the cloak of concerns about nuclear disarmament", and was
compromising everyone's security. The US said that "the last thing the
First Committee needed was another resolution on nuclear disarmament;
what the world did need was sincere, serious commitments to compliance".
In voting no, the US said it was "please to find itself in such good company!"
After the solitary US objections on so many other votes, ranging from
small arms to PAROS to the CTBT, that must indeed have made a nice change
for the US diplomats...
Egypt said that the very close vote on PP6 had come as a "shocking surprise"
and that it was "extremely disappointed" that 54 states had voted against
what was "one of the main pillars of the NPT", adding that this showed
the "polarisation of these issues" since the 2005 review conference. A
few other NAM states argued that they had supported the resolution because
its text reflected their own positions on nuclear disarmament by the weapon
states and that it was important to uphold the principle that resolutions
should not be considered in terms of their origin, but only with regard
to whether their language and substance reflects national positions. Statements
along these lines were made, for example, by South Africa, Mexico and
Sri Lanka. India said it abstained because the resolution was framed by
the NPT, which it is not a party to.
US resolution on Compliance
Though the US had hoped its resolution (L.1/rev.2) on "Compliance with
non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements" would be
adopted without a vote, this was not to be. Unlike three years ago, when
negotiations between contrasting positions were able to be resolved sufficiently
for a consensus to be obtained, Russia called for a vote and abstained,
with several others. The vote was: 137-0-11. Few had expected a vote,
but the large number of co-sponsors ensured that it was nevertheless overwhelmingly
passed.
In its explanation of vote Russia contrasted this year's resolution unfavourably
with the earlier consensus resolution on the same subject [UNGA res 57/86
from 2002] and said it was "disappointed that the authors did not take
into account some of our amendments and comments", which meant that the
draft had "lost its objectivity and purpose of ensuring the integrity
of non-proliferation and disarmament agreements." It said it could not
support the resolution although its position had remained completely unchanged
with regard to being in favour of the most strict compliance by states
with their non-proliferation and arms limitation obligations.
Russia said it fully shared the view on the need to ensure compliance
with agreements, especially with regard to WMD and disarmament: "This
is the goal that Russia is guided by in fulfilling its own obligations
and in its efforts to ensure compliance by its partners... however, this
draft abounds with provisions that give grounds for arbitrary interpretations...
not necessarily associated with the goals of non-proliferation and disarmament."
Russia said it believed that "claims about non-compliance, not substantiated
by facts, are too serious to be formally recorded in a UN GA resolution",
and said "it is difficult to support faceless accusations". In Russia's
views, the conclusions about non-compliance with obligations should be
made, in the first place, within the framework of relevant disarmament
and non-proliferation treaties, that is, following their established procedures."
After giving a more detailed breakdown of its objections to specific parts
of the resolution (which will be reported on in Acronym's longer analysis),
Russia regretted that the sponsors did not restore mention in the operative
part of the resolution on the "need to ensure measures for verification
of compliance with disarmament agreements".
China stated that it did not participate in the vote at all: despite
fully supporting the importance of full compliance, China felt that principles
enshrined in the 2002 resolution had not been properly reaffirmed. Pakistan
also stated that it did not participate in the vote.
A number of NAM states, including Indonesia, Venezuela and Iran also
explained that they had abstained because the resolution was selective
in its approach. Cuba gave six points of objection, complaining that the
2005 version had eliminated "a number of positives" from UNGA res 57/86.
Egypt gave a compelling critique of the resolution based on international
and treaty law. As its points were rather complex, I will not risk a summary
now, as I hope to get hold of the exact text of Egypt's explanation of
vote, which can then be transmitted without risk of mistakes!
France and Germany obtain consensus on new resolution on ammunition
stockpiles
Finally, after many revisions, including some last minute clarifications,
resolution L.40/Rev 1, entitled "Problems arising from the accumulation
of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus" was adopted without
a vote. This first time resolution, presented by France and Germany and
co-sponsored by EU and various other states, puts on the GA agenda an
issue that has been missing from the debates on conventional weapons so
far.
As some explanations from states that joined the consensus underlined,
it does not place new obligations on anyone, but its major operative paragraph
calls on "all interested states to assess, on a voluntary bases, whether,
in conformity with their legitimate security needs, parts of their stockpiles
of conventional ammunition should be considered to be in surplus, and
recognizes that the security of such stockpiles must be taken into consideration
and that appropriate controls with regard to the security and safety of
stockpiles of conventional ammunition are indispensable at the national
level in order to eliminate the risk of explosion, pollution or diversion"
(OP1, as revised).
Resolutions Index
As of October 31, 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.
|
