Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gadis3336.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gadis3336.doc.htm
Date: October 27, 2006

27 October 2006
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/unlogo_blue_sml_en.jpg \* MERGEFORMATINET
General Assembly
GA/DIS/3336 





Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
Sixty-first General Assembly 
First Committee 
22nd Meeting (PM)

FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXT CONDEMNING NUCLEAR-WEAPON TEST BY DEMOCRATIC

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, URGING RETURN TO NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

Seven More Draft Resolutions Recommended to General Assembly;
UN Arms Register, World Court Opinion on Nuclear Weapon Use Among Issues

The General Assembly would condemn the recently announced nuclear weapon test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as well as all nuclear weapons tests, by States not yet parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and any further nuclear weapon test, by any State whatsoever, under the terms of one of seven draft texts approved, today, by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) on issues of nuclear weapons, other disarmament measures, and disarmament machinery.

Further to the draft -– entitled “Towards a nuclear weapon free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” -- the Assembly would urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to rescind its announced withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and call upon all States to comply fully with nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation commitments and not to act in any way that could lead to a nuclear arms race.  The text would also call upon all States Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to spare no effort in achieving its universality, while urging India, Israel, and Pakistan to accede to it promptly and without conditions.

The Committee approved the draft by a vote of 147 in favour to 8 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Togo, United Kingdom, United States), with 12 abstentions (see annex II).

The Committee also approved a draft on transparency in armaments, by which the Assembly would reaffirm its determination to ensure the effective operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and call upon Member States to provide the Secretary-General, by 31 May, annually, with requested data and information for the Register.  The Assembly would also reaffirm its decision to keep the scope of, and participation in, the Register under review.

The Committee approved that draft, by a vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions (see annex XII).

Prior to voting on the draft as a whole, the Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 2, by a vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (see annex V).

It voted to retain operative paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, by votes of 141 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (see annexes VI, VII and VIII).
It voted to retain operative paragraph 6, by a vote of 139 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (see annex IX).

It voted to retain operative paragraph 7b, by a vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (see annex X).

It voted to retain operative paragraph 9, by a vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (see annex XI).

The Committee also approved a draft on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures, by which the Assembly would emphasize the importance of including in United Nations-mandated peacekeeping missions, as appropriate and with the consent of the host States, practical disarmament measures aimed at addressing the problem of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, in conjunction with disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes aimed at former combatants.

The draft was approved, by a vote of 158 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (see annex I).

The Committee also approved a draft resolution on follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, by which the Assembly would express its deep concern at the lack of progress in the implementation of the thirteen steps to implement Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as agreed to at the 2000 Review Conference, and call, once again, upon all States immediately to commence multilateral negotiations, leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

The Committee approved the draft, by a vote of 117 in favour to 27 against, with 26 abstentions (see annex IV).

Prior to voting on the text, the Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 1, by a vote of 159 in favour to 4 opposed (France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with 3 abstentions (Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, United Kingdom)(see annex III).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved drafts on the United Nations disarmament fellowship, training, and advisory services; United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa; and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.

Statements were made today by the representatives of Niger, Haiti, Pakistan, India, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Venezuela, Japan, Iran, China, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, Togo, Cuba, Mauritania, and Syria.

The Committee will meet again Monday, 30 October, at 3 p.m. to continue action on all disarmament and security-related draft texts.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its third and final phase of work, namely, action on all draft resolutions and decisions.

The Committee was expected to take action on drafts on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures; United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services; United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa; United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific; towards a nuclear-free world:  accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments; follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons; and transparency in armaments.

Draft Summaries

A draft on Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/61/L.37) would have the Assembly emphasize the importance of including United Nations-mandated peacekeeping missions, as appropriate and with the consent of the host States, practical disarmament measures aimed at addressing the problem of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in conjunction with disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes aimed at former combatants, in order to promote an integrated comprehensive and effective weapons management strategy.

By a text on United Nations disarmament fellowship, training, and advisory services (document A/C.1/61/L.12), the Assembly, noting that the Programme contributed, significantly, to developing greater awareness of the importance of disarmament and security, would express its appreciation to all Member States and organizations that had consistently supported the programme throughout the years, in particular, to the Governments of Germany and Japan, for the continuation of extensive study visits for programme participants and to the Government of China for organizing a study visit for the fellows, in the area of disarmament.  Further to the draft, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to continue to implement, annually, the Geneva-based programme, within existing resources.

According to a draft on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/61/L.24), the Assembly, deeply concerned that, as noted in the report of the Secretary-General, the future of the Regional Centre looked bleak, as there was no foreseeable reliable source of funding to ensure its operational sustainability, would request the consultative mechanism for the reorganization of the Regional Centre to continue its work, including reviewing its mandate and programmes, with a view to identifying concrete revitalization measures.  The draft would also have the Assembly urge all States and international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations to make voluntary contributions, to strengthen the Centres programmes and activities and facilitate their implementation.  It would appeal, in particular, to the Regional Centre, with the cooperation of the African Union, regional and sub-regional organizations and the African States, to promote the consistent implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.

A draft on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/61/L.28) would have the Assembly underline the importance of the Kathmandu process as a powerful vehicle for the development of region-wide security and disarmament dialogue.  It would appeal to Member States, in particular those within the Asia-Pacific region, as well as international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions to strengthen the Centre’s programme of activities.  The draft would, further, urge the Secretary-General to complete the internal procedure for finalizing the host country agreement and the related memorandum of understanding and to ensure the physical operation of the Centre from Kathmandu, within six months of the signature of the host country agreement.

A draft resolution on Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments (document A/C.1/61/L.13/Rev.2) would have the Assembly call upon all States to comply fully with all commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and not to act in any way that compromised either cause, or that could lead to a nuclear arms race.  The text would also call upon all States Parties to spare no effort in achieving the universality of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while urging India, Israel, and Pakistan to accede to it promptly and without conditions.  It would further have the Assembly condemn the announced nuclear weapon test, by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, on 9 October 2006, all nuclear weapons tests by States which are not yet parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and any further nuclear weapon test by any State whatsoever, and urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to rescind its announced withdrawal from the Treaty.

Expressing its deep concern at the lack of progress, in the implementation of the thirteen steps to implement article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, agreed to at the 2000 Review Conference, the Assembly would call once again upon all States, immediately, to commence multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination, according to a draft resolution on Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/61/L.44).

According to a draft on Transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/61/L.38), the Assembly would reaffirm its determination to ensure the effective operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.  It would call upon Member States to provide the Secretary-General by 31 May, annually, with requested data and information for the Register.  It would also reaffirm its decision to keep the scope of, and participation in, the Register under review.  Further, it would reiterate its call upon all Member States to cooperate at the regional and subregional levels, taking fully into account the specific conditions in the region or subregion, with a view to enhancing and coordinating international efforts aimed at increasing openness and transparency in armaments.

Action on Drafts

The Committee approved a draft resolution on Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A.C.1/61/L.37), by a vote of 158 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (see annex I).

The Committee then approved a draft resolution on United Nations disarmament fellowship, training, and advisory services (document A/C.1/61/L.12) without a vote.

The Secretary then read out a statement on the draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/61/L.24), noting that it would not give rise to financial implications for the 2006-2007 biennium.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

The Secretary then read out a statement on a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/61/L.28), noting that it would not give rise to additional requirements for the 2006-2007 biennium.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

Speaking after the vote and referring to the text on practical disarmament measures, L. 37, BOUBACAR BOUREIMA ( Niger) said that his delegation would have voted in favour, if present.

MICHELET ALOUIDOR (Haiti), referring to the text on the Asia and Pacific Centre, L. 28, said he would have voted for that resolution, if present.

Speaking before the vote on the next cluster, QAZI KHALILULLAH ( Pakistan), explaining his vote on L.13/Rev. 2, said that his delegation supported the objectives of universal and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament.  In 2004, he appreciated the efforts of the co-sponsors in accommodating Pakistan’s position.  Last year, the decision to call for Pakistan to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) without conditions, made his delegation abstain and further, vote against operative paragraph 5.

He added that Pakistan was not the first to conduct a nuclear test.  Nuclear tests conducted in South Asia had disrupted the balance in the region.  Pakistan had no choice but to conduct its test, so as to restore regional stability.  He noted that modifications, in operative paragraph 6, were both discriminatory and selective.  That was yet another example of compromising, on the principle of fairness.  There appeared to be an inability to speak the whole truth.

Furthermore, the New Agenda had undermined its own credibility.  As the changes made were both unwarranted and unacceptable, Pakistan would be obliged to vote against the resolution.

JAYANT PRASAD (India), explaining his vote on the same text, L.13/Rev. 2, said that India was committed to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and equally concerned by the threat those posed.  He shared the view that disarmament and non-proliferation were mutually reinforcing.  Though he had expected references to important interim measures, including de-alerting, those were not reflected in the resolution.

He was also surprised that the revised text no longer condemned all nuclear tests.  On operative paragraph 6, he said that a selective condemnation of past nuclear tests was misplaced.  It was presumptuous to condemn future nuclear tests that may or may not be conducted.  Furthermore, his delegation’s objections to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference were well-known.  He would, thus, vote against the resolution.

Speaking before the vote, KIM KWANG IL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that he opposed operative paragraph 6 of L.13, since it dealt with nuclear tests by his country, in a one-sided and biased manner.  He reiterated that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would make every positive effort to realize the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and promote global nuclear disarmament.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments (document A/C.1/61/L.13/Rev.2), by a vote of 147 in favour to 8 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Togo, United Kingdom, United States), with 12 abstentions (see annex II).

On a draft resolution on Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/61/L.44), the Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 1, by a vote of 159 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with 3 abstentions (Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, United Kingdom) (see annex III).

The Committee then approved the draft as a whole, by a vote of 117 in favour to 27 against, with 26 abstentions (see annex IV).

After the vote, PUI LEONG ( Venezuela) said that Venezuela was a State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and had voted in favour of L.13/Rev. 2, because of its commitment to nuclear disarmament.  Her Government believed that the existence of nuclear weapons posed a great threat and their total elimination remained the solution.  Furthermore, peace based on discrimination was fragile.  She advocated the destruction of existing nuclear weapons.  All states -- without exception -– needed to adhere to treaties and respect the provisions therein.  The universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was vital, as was the total prohibition of nuclear tests.

YOSHIKI MINE (Japan), speaking on the International Court of Justice opinion, L.44, said that because of their immense power to cause death and destruction, the use of nuclear weapons was contrary to the fundamental humanitarianism that was the founding philosophy of international law.  Nuclear weapons should never be used again, and continuous efforts must be made to achieve a world, free of nuclear weapons.  Japan supported the advisory opinion.  Concrete measures were needed to make step-by-step progress in disarmament.  It was premature to call upon all States, immediately, to fulfil that obligation, by commencing multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention.  Incremental progress should be made first; for that reason, he had abstained on the draft.

REZA NAJAFI (Iran), speaking on L.13/Rev.2, said that, 11 years after the indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and 36 years after its entry into force, nuclear disarmament obligations had yet to be implemented.  Many times, the international community had expressed dismay at that lack of progress and expressed serious concern about new types of nuclear weapons, in clear contravention of the undertakings of nuclear States, at the time of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, that they would prevent the improvement of existing weapons.  Iran fully supported the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  Last year, it had introduced a resolution for following upon nuclear disarmament obligations.  The inalienable rights of parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty must be accepted, without discrimination.  Iran had urged a follow-up on disarmament obligations, which it continued to pursue.  For that reason, he had supported L.13/Rev.2.

CHENG JINGYE ( China) said that he had voted in favour of L.13/Rev. 2.  China had always stood for the complete prohibition and destruction of all nuclear weapons.  An international legal instrument on the thorough destruction of nuclear weapons should be concluded, at an early date.  It should be just, with a reasonable process of reduction.  The two States with the largest arsenals bore primary responsibility and should earnestly comply, by reducing their nuclear arsenals to achieve the ultimate goal of complete disarmament.  Before the goal of complete destruction was achieved, nuclear weapon States should commit to no first use, and to reduce the role of such weapons in national security.  Intermediate measures should follow the global strategic balance and security.  The prevention of the weaponization of outer space needed to be achieved.  The Conference on Disarmament should reach early agreement on a programme of work and the establishment of an ad hoc committee.  Several other resolutions on nuclear disarmament had scope for improvement.  On L.32, some measures were not feasible at present, so China had abstained.  On L.39, it had voted in favour.

CRAIG MacLACHLAN ( Australia), referring to his abstention on L.13/Rev. 2, said that there was much in the resolution that his Government supported.  That included States adhere to their obligations, under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the condemnation of nuclear tests, particularly that conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  However, it failed to address the progress made in reducing nuclear arsenals.  Australia strongly supported the universality of the Treaty and remained actively committed to nuclear disarmament.

Referring to L.44, he said that, though the record showed an abstention, his delegation wanted to vote against it.

JOHN DUNCAN (United Kingdom), referring to L.13/Rev. 2, and speaking on behalf of France, the United Kingdom and the United States, said that the text contained many unacceptable elements.  For one, the title did not reflect the progress being made.

Although his delegation was fully committed to fulfilling their obligations, under article 6 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, he noted that that draft does not take into account ongoing efforts, nor did it mention his delegation’s public commitment to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty, as a matter of high priority.  In short, he was convinced that the resolution remained divisive.

ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation), explaining his abstention on L.13/Rev. 2, said that it was difficult to accept the idea of artificial acceleration on the implementation of commitments, without technical or political limits.  He considered that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was only possible through progressive measures –- in several stages.  It also needed to be based on an integrated approach and with the participation of all nuclear-weapon States.  At the same time, it was imperative that it respect the principle of equal security for all.

On L.44, he said that his delegation was unable to support the text, for reasons that were well-known to all, and remained unchanged.  This year, the text covered certain important elements.  He welcomed the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia.  Undoubtedly, that was a true success.

The representative of Togo, speaking on L.13/Rev.2, said his vote had erroneously been recorded as opposed to the draft.  He had, in fact, voted for it.

The Secretary then read out a statement on the draft on Transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/61/L.38).

The Committee voted to retain operative paragraph 2, by a vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (see annex V).

It then voted to retain operative paragraph 3, by a vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (see annex VI).

It then voted to retain operative paragraph 4, by a vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (see annex VII).

The Committee then voted to retain operative paragraph 5, by a vote 141 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (see annex VIII).

It then voted to retain operative paragraph 6, by a vote of 139 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (see annex IX).

It then voted to retain operative paragraph 7b, by a vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions (see annex X).

It then voted to retain operative paragraph 9, by a vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (see annex XI).

The Committee then approved the draft resolution as a whole, by a vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions (see annex XII).

RODOLFO ELISEO BENITEZ VERSON ( Cuba), referring to his vote on transparency, L.38, said that his delegation had refrained from voting on the draft as a whole.  His Government believed that transparency was, indeed, important in creating confidence.  The United Nations Register was a concrete measure towards achieving that goal.  In turn, Cuba had contributed consistently to the Register.  Yet, he expressed concern over the ever-increasing emphasis on small arms, while no progress had been made on information on weapons of mass 
destructions -- particularly on nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, he said that the Register needed to be a balanced and non-discriminatory instrument, but could not be an end, in itself.  On the Group of Experts, no Cuban expert had been included, despite his country’s interest in participating.  He voiced concern over how the Group’s composition had been established.  He hoped that point would be duly noted in future considerations.

CHENG JINGYE ( China) said that his country attached great importance to the United Nations Arms Register, which could strengthen trust.  China had participated in the regime in 1993, but, after 1996, certain countries, in violation of the principle of the Register, insisted on registering illicit weapons sales to the Chinese province of Taiwan, so China was forced to temporarily suspend its participation in the register.

With concerted efforts, the Group of Governmental Experts had made significant progress this year, he continued.  The group’s report affirmed the principle that the Register should only include arms transfers among Member States.  The above-mentioned country had also corrected its related practices, this year.  For that reason, he had voted in favour of the resolution on transparency in armaments, which was an issue of great significance in international peace and security.  The relationship between the two was not one of straight causality.  Measures of transparency should be reasonable and feasible.  Attempts to enforce uniform transparency levels would not work.

QAZI KHALILULLAH (Pakistan), referring to his vote on L. 38, on transparency, said that the United Nations Register represented a first step in confidence-building, but the objectives within the text were far from being achieved.  The excessive arms build-up continued around the world and, thus, he believed that promoting transparency should not become an end, in itself.  All had agreed that the gradual reduction of military budgets –- especially those of nuclear weapon states –- would contribute to curbing an arms race and furthermore, reallocate resources to economic and social development.  However, those objectives had not been translated into action.  It was imperative that the underlining causes -- those preventing objectives from being met -- be addressed.

His delegation would pursue a comprehensive regime in South Asia, encompassing the objectives outlined above.

DJIBRIL MAME ( Mauritania) said that he wished to clarify his vote on operative paragraphs 2 and 3 of L.38.  He had intended to abstain.

BASSSAM DARWISH ( Syria) said he wished to confirm his country’s support for an international community, where there was no use of force, governed by the United Nations Charter.  Syria was ready to participate in any international effort to achieve those objectives, but the draft did not take into account the special situation in the Middle East, where the Arab-Israeli conflict persisted, because Israel continued to occupy Arab territories and refused to implement relevant Security Council resolutions and continued to receive support from a superpower, as well as weapons of mass destruction.  It also had the most advanced conventional weapons, apart from its capacity to produce and stockpile them, principally nuclear weapons.

Mr. MacLACHLAN (Australia), referring to his vote on the International Court of Justice opinion, L. 44, said that his delegation had indeed voted yes on operative paragraph 1, but abstained on the resolution as a whole.  He apologized for the confusion.

BASSSAM DARWASH ( Syria), speaking on behalf of the Arab League to explain the vote on L.38, said that his delegation was very keen on maintaining the Register.  He supported transparency, as a means of strengthening international peace and security.  Any mechanism needed to be balanced, transparent and non-
discriminatory, however.  The Register was the first attempt to address the issue of transparency at the international level.  It did, however, face a problem in that half of the Member States refrained from giving information.

The Middle East was a special situation, he continued.  Israel persisted in occupying Arab territories and possessed the most lethal weapons.  It was the only country in the region, not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and insisted on ignoring repeated calls, by the international community, to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and subject its nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards.

ANNEX I

Vote on Practical Disarmament Measures

The draft resolution on the consolidation of through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/61/L.37) was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Belize, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Haiti, Kiribati, Lebanon, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Niger, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free World

The draft resolution on Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: acceleration of nuclear disarmament commitments (document A/C.1/61/L.13/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 147 in favour to 8 against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Togo, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Australia, Belarus, Bhutan, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Malawi, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia.

Absent:  Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Nigeria, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Operative Paragraph 1 / International Court of Justice Opinion

Operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution on the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/61/L.44) was retained by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 4 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States.

Abstain:  Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Belarus, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mozambique, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on International Court of Justice Opinion

The draft resolution on the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/61/L.44) was approved by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 27 against, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Andorra, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Micronesia (Federated States of), Montenegro, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine.

Absent:  Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Operative Paragraph 2 / Transparency

Operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution on transparency (document A/C.1/61/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3 / Transparency

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on transparency (document A/C.1/61/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 4 / Transparency

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on transparency (document A/C.1/61/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 5 / Transparancy

Operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on transparency (document A/C.1/61/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Operative Paragraph 6 / Transparency

Operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on transparency (document A/C.1/61/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

ANNEX X

Vote on Operative Paragraph 7(b) / Transparency

Operative paragraph 7(b) of the draft resolution on transparency (document A/C.1/61/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 9 / Transparency

Operative paragraph 9 of the draft resolution on transparency (document A/C.1/61/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Transparency

The draft resolution on transparency (document A/C.1/61/L.38) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Armenia, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record