United Nations

A/C.1/60/PV.18
Official Records

General Assembly
Sixtieth session

First Committee

18th meeting
Monday, 24 October 2005, 3 p.m. New York

05-56560*0556560*

Chairman:

Choi Young Jin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(Republic of Korea)

The meeting was called to order at 3.05 p.m. Agenda items 85 to 105 (continued) Action on all draft resolutions submitted under all disarmament and international security agenda items The Chairman: In accordance with its programme of work and timetable, this afternoon the First Committee will begin the third phase of its work, namely, action on all draft resolutions and decisions submitted under agenda items 85 to 105. The Committee will take action on draft resolutions that appear in revised informal working paper 1, which was circulated during the previous meeting, beginning with cluster 1, "Nuclear weapons". After completing action on draft resolutions and decisions contained in cluster 1, the Committee will proceed to take action on draft resolutions contained in cluster 2, "Other weapons of mass destruction". The Committee will then proceed with draft resolutions contained in clusters 5, 6 and 7. In proceeding with our work, I would like to remind delegations that the Committee will follow the same procedure as was already outlined by the Chairman and explained in the ground rules information sheet circulated last Friday. Allow me once again to remind delegations that sponsors of draft resolutions may make general statements at the beginning of the meeting on a particular cluster. In accordance with the rules of procedure, they may not make statements in

explanation of their votes, either before or after action is taken. Before the Committee proceeds to take decisions on all draft resolutions contained in cluster 1, namely, nuclear weapons, as appear in revised informal working paper 1, I shall give the floor to delegations wishing to make general statements or to introduce draft resolutions. Mr. Gala Lopéz (Cuba) (spoke in Spanish): On behalf of my delegation, I should like to make the following general comments on cluster 1, entitled "Nuclear weapons". Mindful of the danger posed to all humankind by the very existence of such weapons, we reiterate the importance, complete validity and urgency of the issue of nuclear disarmament. Several of the draft resolutions under this cluster contain references to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and/or the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, which is also known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco. In that regard, we would like to underscore our rejection of the selective implementation of, and double standard approach to, the NPT. We believe that matters pertaining to nuclear disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy cannot continue to be put aside while priority is given to issues having to do with horizontal non-proliferation.

This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of speeches delivered in the other languages. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-154A. Corrections will be issued after the end of the session in a consolidated corrigendum.

06-56560 (E)

*0656560*

A/C.1/60/PV.18

My Government has taken additional practical steps that clearly reflect Cuba's decision to speedily honour all its State-party obligations entered into in the treaties to which I have referred. My delegation has already spoken in detail about that in our statements during the Committee's general and thematic debates. With regard to the voting to be conducted on the draft resolutions under cluster 1, my delegation reiterates that it will continue to consider its vote on a case-by-case basis and while assessing each draft resolution's overall balance. We shall do so on the basis of the fact that achieving complete nuclear disarmament under a strict and effective international verification system is Cuba's highest priority in the area of disarmament. The Chairman: I shall now call on delegations wishing to introduce draft resolution's. Mr. Udedibia (Nigeria): On behalf of the Group of African States, I have the honour to introduce the draft resolution contained in document A/C.1/60/L.9, entitled "Prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes". The dumping of radioactive wastes poses a serious threat to the security and development of all States. It constitutes a serious health hazard to the inhabitants of the area in which they may be deposited, and is known to be profoundly harmful to the environment. Some developing countries, in particular the least developed among them, have been the victims of the dumping of radioactive wastes. Until the General Assembly's adoption of the first resolution on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes, on the initiative of the African Group at the Assembly's forty-third session, in 1988, Africa had been a preferred destination for the transporters of radioactive wastes in search of territories in which to dump such wastes. Concerned about the serious effects of the dumping of radioactive wastes, the African Group hopes that the international community, as represented at this meeting, will continue to support this draft resolution to protect States from the indiscriminate dumping of these harmful materials, which may infringe upon their sovereignty. In 1988 and again in 1989, the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) -- now the African Union -- adopted

resolutions concerning the dumping of nuclear or industrial wastes in Africa. Since then, the international community has recognized the need to address the issue. That is particularly so with respect to States members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On 21 September 1990, the IAEA General Conference, at its thirty-fourth regular session, adopted a resolution establishing the Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste. In addition, on 21 September 2001, the General Conference, at its forty-fifth regular session, adopted a resolution urging member States that ship radioactive materials to provide, as appropriate, assurances to potentially affected States that their national regulations accord with the Agency's transport regulations and to provide the concerned States with information related to the shipment of such materials. The information provided should in no case be contradictory to the measures of physical security and safety. On 5 September 1997 in Vienna, the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management was adopted, as recommended by the participants in the Summit on Nuclear Safety and Security. This draft resolution calls upon all States to take appropriate measures with a view to preventing any dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes that would infringe upon the sovereignty of States, expresses grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States, and requests the Conference on Disarmament to intensify efforts towards an early conclusion of a convention on the prohibition of radiological weapons. The draft resolution takes note of the resolution adopted in 1991 by the OAU Council of Ministers on the Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa. It expresses the hope that the effective implementation of the IAEA Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste will enhance the protection of all States from the dumping of radioactive wastes on their territories. Finally, it appeals to all Member States that have not yet taken the necessary steps to become parties to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management to do so as soon as possible.

2

A/C.1/60/PV.18

With the exception of technical updates relating to the preambular paragraphs, the elements of the draft resolution are the same as those of the one adopted at the fifty-eighth session. The draft resolution has always been adopted without a vote both in the First Committee and in the General Assembly. The African Group would appreciate the cooperation of all delegations in adopting it without a vote once again at the present session. Mr. De Alba (Mexico) (spoke in Spanish): Permit me at the outset to introduce the draft decision contained in document A/C.1/60/L.11, entitled "United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament". Submitted by my country, the draft decision, like those submitted in recent years, is aimed primarily at keeping this issue on the agenda. We are convinced that, five years after the Millennium Assembly's consensus decision to convene such a conference, it remains valid and, I would say, even more necessary than before. It is more necessary because the dangers stemming from the existence of nuclear weapons have intensified, particularly over the past five years and because of the paralysis in the relevant negotiations. Hence, we propose not only to once again seek the inclusion of this item in the agenda, but also to step up the consultations so that we can, hopefully, soon fulfil this aspiration, which was adopted by the unanimous agreement of the membership and, as the Committee is aware, began as an initiative of Secretary-General Kofi Annan. I should also like to introduce the draft resolution contained in document A/C.1/60/L.25, entitled "Consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco)". The draft resolution was submitted by the States parties to the Treaty, all of which are sponsors. It contains a new paragraph with respect to what has been previously adopted: the sixth preambular paragraph, which notes with satisfaction the leadership of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean in the convening of the first Conference of States Parties and Signatories to Treaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones, held in Tlatelolco, Mexico, from 26 to 28 April 2005. As members are aware, the results of the Conference

were highly satisfactory. We therefore believe it is relevant for us to take note of it. In its operative portion, the draft resolution reaffirms the basic elements of previous resolutions, highlights in particular that all United Nations Member States belonging to the Latin American and Caribbean Group are already parties to the Treaty and, of course, recalls the commitments undertaken at the most recent session of the General Conference of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, held at Havana, Cuba. That outcome will be reviewed and supplemented at the next session, to be held at Santiago, Chile, this year. Those draft resolutions are ready to be considered by the Committee at this meeting. The Chairman: The First Committee will now proceed to take a decision on the draft resolutions contained in cluster 1, "Nuclear weapons", beginning with draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.3, entitled "Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East". I should like to remind delegations that the Committee will take action on all draft resolutions contained in revised informal working paper number 1, one after another, without interruption. Before doing so, I shall call upon those delegations wishing to explain their position or make statements or general comments on all draft resolutions and decisions contained in cluster 1 of the revised informal working paper number 1. Mr. Freeman (United Kingdom): The European Union, on whose behalf I speak, would like to explain its position with respect to draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6, entitled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East". We support the objective of the Middle East becoming a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. But we are concerned that the draft resolution does not cover some relevant recent developments, with respect to nuclear proliferation in the region. The European Union will vote in favour of the draft resolution, and calls on all States in the region to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). We also call on all States in the region that have not yet done so, to conclude a comprehensive safeguards agreement and to sign and ratify the Additional Protocol. The European Union

3

A/C.1/60/PV.18

shares the concerns of the international community over Iran's nuclear programme, reflected in the relevant resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors. Iran's non-compliance with its safeguards obligations raises serious questions, and is not compatible with the international non-proliferation regime. It is of critical importance, not only for all States in the Middle East to accede to relevant nonproliferation treaties and conventions, but also that all parties to the treaties and conventions implement fully their obligations under those instruments. The European Union is concerned by Iran's decision to resume uranium conversion activity at its facility in Isfahan, contrary to the requests of the IAEA Board, and the agreement made in Paris in November 2004, by Iran with France, Germany and the United Kingdom, in association with the European Union's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This agreement has provided the basis for talks on long-term arrangements. We hope that Iran will take the opportunity to implement in full, the requests made by the IAEA Board in its resolution of 24 September. The European Union supports the resumption of negotiations on the basis of the Paris agreement. I also have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union with regard to draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.26. I also speak on behalf of the countries that have aligned themselves with the draft resolution, entitled "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty" (CTBT). Under the thematic nuclear cluster, I have the opportunity on behalf of the European Union to express the views of the EU regarding the CTBT, reiterating the EU's beliefs that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is an essential part of the disarmament and non-proliferation regime. We hope to move closer to the early entry into force of the Treaty, and to work towards its universality, because global adherence to the Treaty will contribute to the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to the process of nuclear disarmament and, therefore, to the enhancement of international peace and security, while taking into account that the ultimate objective of the disarmament

process is general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. The European Union attaches utmost importance to the early entry into force of the Treaty, and will continue to call on the States that have not yet done so, to sign and ratify the CTBT without delay and without conditions. In particular, we call for early ratification by the so-called Annex 2 countries -- States whose ratification is necessary for the Treaty to enter into force. In that context, the European Union also strongly supports the work of the Special Representative of the ratifying States, who is visiting several of the Annex 2 countries to promote universal adherence to the CTBT. The European Union believes that the legally binding prohibition of nuclear weapons test explosions and all other nuclear explosions, as well as a credible verification regime are vital. Pending the entry into force of the CTBT, the European Union urges all States to abide by a moratorium and to refrain from any actions which are contrary to the obligations and provisions of the CTBT. That is the reason why the European Union fully supports draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.26 which has been sponsored by all EU Member States. Mr. Gala López (Cuba) (spoke in Spanish): Among the cluster of items on nuclear weapons, it is projected today to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.36, entitled "Nuclear disarmament". My delegation backs the contents of that draft, taking the view that in fact, it appropriately reflects the priority attached to nuclear disarmament. The operative paragraphs once again include an important appeal to the Conference on Disarmament to establish, as a priority matter beginning in 2006, an ad hoc committee to address the issue of nuclear disarmament, and to enter into negotiations on a phased nuclear disarmament programme, ending with the complete elimination of that type of weaponry. We have also noted that the preambular part refers to the important declaration adopted at the special foreign ministers meeting of the Movement of Non-Aligned countries, held in Doha in June 2005. We reiterate that the elimination of nuclear weapons must continue to be considered as a top priority in the disarmament arena by the international community. My

4

A/C.1/60/PV.18

country has always supported any legitimate steps designed to attain that goal without delay. Mr. Hu Xiaodi (China) (spoke in Chinese): Before voting on the three draft resolutions on nuclear disarmament, A/C.1/60/L.36, L.4 and L.28, I would like to explain China's voting position in the context of China's basic position and policies on nuclear disarmament. China has always supported the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. In order to promote the process of nuclear disarmament, China maintains that the following measures must be taken. First, an international legal instrument on the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons should be concluded at an early date. Secondly, nuclear disarmament should be a just and reasonable process of gradual reduction towards a downward balance. The two States possessing the largest nuclear arsenals bear special and primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament. They should earnestly comply with the treaties already concluded on the reduction of nuclear weapons, and further reduce their nuclear arsenals in a verifiable and irreversible manner, in order to create conditions towards achieving the ultimate goal of general and complete nuclear disarmament. Thirdly, before the goal of the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons is achieved, nuclear-weapon States should commit themselves to the non-first-use of nuclear weapons and undertake, unconditionally, not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nonnuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones. Fourthly, nuclear-weapon States should abandon the policy of nuclear deterrence based upon the first use of nuclear weapons and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their national security. Fifthly, nuclear disarmament measures, including various intermediate measures, should follow the guidelines of maintaining global strategic balance and stability, and undiminished security for all. Sixthly, preventing the weaponization of, and an arms race in, outer space, would be conducive to promoting the process of nuclear disarmament. Seventh, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva should reach an agreement on its programme of work

at an early date, so as to establish ad hoc committees on nuclear disarmament, security assurances for nonnuclear-weapon States, fissile material cut-off, and prevention of an arms race in outer space, and then begin substantive work on those issues. China supports the main thrust, objectives and major elements of draft resolutions A/C.1/60/L.36, L.4 and L.28, on promoting nuclear disarmament and the realization of a nuclear-weapon-free world at an early date. However, the draft resolutions have not fully reflected the basic principles of nuclear disarmament, as mentioned above, and still have room for further improvement. We shall vote in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.36, entitled "Nuclear disarmament" and draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.4, entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments". Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.28, entitled "Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons", advocates a few measures whose implementation would be premature in the current international situation. We have some reservations and will abstain in the vote on that draft resolution. Mr. Bar (Israel): I take the floor in order to explain our vote on the draft resolution contained in A/C.1/60/L.6, entitled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East". Once again, the First Committee is called upon to vote on the draft resolution entitled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East". The title is important. This draft resolution is blatantly one-sided, contentious and divisive and it undermines rather than enhances confidence among the States of the region. There is no doubt that the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East indeed exists. In recent years we have seen public evidence that States in our region have repeatedly acted in non-compliance with their obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Surprisingly enough, the draft resolution does not reflect any of the facts and realities stated above. It chooses to ignore the internationally acknowledged evidence regarding States that join international arrangements but do not comply with them. This draft resolution also overlooks the profound hostility of States in the region towards Israel, as well as their

5

A/C.1/60/PV.18

refusal to maintain any form of peaceful reconciliation and coexistence with my country. Furthermore, this draft resolution focuses entirely and by name on one country, a country which has never threatened its neighbours nor abrogated its obligations under any disarmament treaty. It singles out Israel as no other United Nations Member State is being singled out in the First Committee. Singling out Israel and ignoring the real risk of proliferation in the Middle East does not lend the First Committee any credibility. Adopting such a draft resolution will not serve the greater objective of curbing proliferation in the Middle East, but could rather compromise it. Draft resolutions regarding the complex arms control problem in the Middle East should focus on objective ways to address them as they emerge. The First Committee should not once again become a venue for political discrimination. We would like to call upon the distinguished delegates to reconsider their vote and vote against this draft resolution. I would also like to take this opportunity to explain our vote on A/C.1/60/L.26/Rev.1, entitled "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty" (CTBT). Israel signed the CTBT in September 1996. This decision reflects its long-standing policy on arms control and its support for international nonproliferation efforts, with due consideration to the specific characteristics of the Middle East and our national security requirements. Furthermore, Israel has played an active role throughout the negotiations of the Treaty in Geneva and contributed conceptually, technically and politically to its drafting. Since the establishment of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) in November 1996, Israel has played a major part in the endeavours to develop the elements of the CTBT verification regime, including the practical procedures to be adopted in the operational manuals by which the Treaty will be implemented. Israel decided it will vote in favour of resolution A/C.1/60/L.26/Rev.1 because of the importance it attaches to the objectives of the CTBT and notwithstanding its reservation regarding some of the wording in operative paragraph 1. Israel remains committed to the objectives of the CTBT. We would like to emphasize, however, that there is still progress to be made on several important

issues. The first issue is that of the development and readiness of the verification regime. In our view, its completion constitutes a prerequisite to entry into force as required by the first paragraph of article 4 of the Treaty. Moreover, it is our belief that the verification regime should provide for an overall system that is as effective as possible to detect non-compliance with the basic obligations of the Treaty. At the same time, it should be immune to abuse and allow every State signatory to protect its national security interests. These principles guide Israel in the development of the CTBT verification regime. The second issue involves resolving several salient political issues, in particular those related to the geographical region of the Middle East and South Asia. A final issue involves reversing the negative dynamic evolving in our region, where certain State signatories are not fully cooperative with the efforts to complete and test the International Monitoring System (IMS) element of the verification regime, thus impeding the pace of development of this element in the verification regime. Recognizing that entry into force of the Treaty is still pending and does not look imminent, we believe that advancement of the objective of the CTBT calls for the following commitments and activities to be diligently pursued. First and foremost, the commitment not to carry out any nuclear test explosion, in line with the Treaty's basic obligation, must be sustained. Secondly, sufficient funds must be provided to the CTBTO in order to complete as soon as possible the essential elements of the CTBT verification regime. Thirdly, the IMS stations and the International Data Centre must be operated, maintained and tested as appropriate to gain experience in order to provide detection capabilities prior to the Treaty's entry into force, as well as to smooth the operation of the monitoring system by entering into force. In addition, seismic cooperation among all Member States must be expanded. Fourthly, the onsite inspection element of the CTBT verification regime must be built. Ms. Vatne (Norway): Norway would like to align itself with the explanation of vote given by the representative of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the European Union, regarding draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6, entitled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East".

6

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Mr. Bugallo (Spain) (spoke in Spanish): This being the first time I am taking the floor in this Committee, I should like to congratulate you, Sir, upon your election to the chairmanship and on the skill and leadership you have demonstrated. I would like to make an explanation of vote on behalf of Spain with regard to the draft resolution entitled "Nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas", contained in A/C.1/60/L.12. Spain fully supports the creation of nuclearweapon-free zones in accordance with arrangements freely worked out and consensually arrived at between and among States in any region. Spain has consistently stated unequivocally its support for the objectives of treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones, on the understanding that such zones represent a significant contribution to the strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and to the promotion of efforts leading to nuclear disarmament. Our delegation therefore believes that the draft resolution that has just been adopted is important to the consolidation of such zones and to cooperation among them. Indeed, Spain has in the past supported the provisions of the draft resolution and voted in favour of preceding ones, including resolutions 53/77 Q and 54/54 L at the fifty-third and fifty-fourth sessions, respectively. However, this time around the Spanish delegation has decided to abstain in the voting on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.12, as we did at the fifty-fifth, fifty-sixth, fifty-seventh, fifty-eighth and fifty-ninth sessions. We are doing so because an issue is involved about which my country has always had, and continues to have, reservations: the holding of an international Conference of States Parties and Signatories to Treaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones to reaffirm the common objectives set out in those treaties, as contained in the eighth preambular paragraph and in operative paragraph 8. The seventh preambular paragraph of the draft resolution just adopted also contains a reference to the possibility of holding, among other kinds of exchanges, joint meetings of States parties and signatories to treaties that establish nuclear-weapon-free zones in order to enhance cooperation among such zones -- a concept to which Spain has no objection whatsoever.

However, as pointed out earlier, the text of the draft resolution just adopted states, in the eighth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 8 alike, something that delegation has consistently viewed as a new concept: an international conference that is qualitatively different, and, what is more, one that represents a departure from the consensus agreements reached in the area of nuclear-weapon-free zones. The concept of an international conference such as the one mentioned in the eighth preambular paragraph and in operative paragraph 8 does not appear in the April 1999 report of the Disarmament Commission on the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in accordance with agreements freely entered into among the States of the region, nor is it mentioned in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference in paragraphs relating to nuclear-weapon-free zones. Spain participated actively hand in both negotiating processes and welcomes the fact that they led to satisfactory though hard-won consensus agreements. Spain's view is that the foundation laid down in both documents is sufficient and that there are no additional juridical or political elements that could justify the holding of such an international conference. For all those reasons, my delegation is not in a position to endorse such a proposal and, as a consequence, it cannot support this resolution. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on all draft decisions and draft resolutions contained in revised informal working paper 1, beginning with draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.3, entitled "Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East". I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.3, entitled "Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Egypt at the Committee's 14th meeting, on 18 October 2005. The sponsors of the draft resolution are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.3 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, Bangladesh has now become a sponsor.

7

A/C.1/60/PV.18

The Chairman: The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.3 was adopted. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision A/C.1/60/L.5. A recorded vote has been requested. I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision A/C.1/60/L.5, entitled "Missiles". The draft decision was introduced by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the Committee's 9th meeting, on 11 October 2005. The sponsors of the draft decision are listed in document A/C.1/60/L.5. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, GuineaBissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia

Against: Israel, United States of America Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Draft decision A/C.1/60/L.5 was adopted by 101 votes to 2, with 50 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee proceed to take action on draft A/C.1/60/L.6. will now resolution

A recorded vote has been requested. A separate vote has also been requested on the sixth preambular paragraph. Thereafter, the Committee will vote on the draft resolution as a whole. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6, entitled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Egypt at the Committee's 14th meeting, on 18 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in the document. In addition, Bangladesh has become a sponsor. The Committee will now proceed to take a separate vote on the sixth preambular paragraph, which reads as follows: "Recognizing with satisfaction that, in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Conference undertook to make determined efforts towards the achievement of the goal of universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, called upon those remaining States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it, thereby

8

A/C.1/60/PV.18

accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities, and underlined the necessity of universal adherence to the Treaty and of strict compliance by all parties with their obligations under the Treaty". A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia

Against: India, Israel Abstaining: Bhutan, Cameroon, Mauritius, Pakistan, United States of America The sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6 was retained by 145 votes to 2, with 5 abstentions. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6 as a whole. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo,

9

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: Israel, United States of America Abstaining: Australia, Cameroon, Ethiopia, India Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6 as a whole was adopted by 149 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision A/C.1/60/L.7. I call on the Secretary of the Committee. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision A/C.1/60/L.7, entitled "Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia". The draft decision was introduced by the representative of Uzbekistan at the Committee's 12th meeting, on 14 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in the document. In addition, Bangladesh has become a sponsor. The Chairman: I should like to inform members that the sponsors of draft decision A/C.1/60/L.7 have expressed the wish that it be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. Draft decision A/C.1/60/L.7 was adopted. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.9. I call on the Secretary of the Committee. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.9, entitled "Prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Nigeria, on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Group of African States, at the Committee's 18th meeting, on 24 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in the document. In addition, Bangladesh has become a sponsor. The Chairman: I should like to inform members that the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.9 have expressed the wish that it be adopted by the Committee

without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.9 was adopted. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision A/C.1/60/L.11. A recorded vote has been requested. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft decision A/C.1/60/L.11, entitled "United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament". The draft decision was introduced by the representative of Mexico at the Committee's 18th meeting, on 24 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in the document. In addition, Bangladesh has become a sponsor. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia

10

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Against: France, Israel, Poland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey Draft decision A/C.1/60/L.11 was adopted by 108 votes to 5, with 39 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.12/Rev.1. A recorded vote has also been requested. A request has also been made for separate recorded votes on the last three words of operative paragraph 5 and on operative paragraph 5 as a whole. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.12/Rev.1, entitled "Nuclearweapon-free Southern Hemisphere and adjacent areas". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of New Zealand at the Committee's 9th meeting, on 11 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.12/Rev.1 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, the following countries have become sponsors: the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Jamaica and Sierra Leone. The Committee will now proceed to take a separate vote on the last three words of operative paragraph 5, which read as follows: "and South Asia". A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei

Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: India, Pakistan Abstaining: Bhutan, France, Israel, Russian Federation, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America The last three words of operative paragraph 5 were retained by 140 votes to 2, with 7 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on operative paragraph 5 as a whole. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take a separate vote on operative paragraph 5 as a whole, which reads as follows:

11

A/C.1/60/PV.18

"Welcomes the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned, and calls upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia". A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: India

Abstaining: Bhutan, France, Israel, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Spain, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Operative paragraph 5 as a whole was retained by 141 votes to 1, with 9 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.12/Rev.1 as a whole. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.12/Rev.1 as a whole. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab

12

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Bhutan, India, Federation, Spain Israel, Pakistan, Russian

introduced by the representative of Mexico at the Committee's 15th meeting, on 19 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.26/Rev.1 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, the following countries have become sponsors: Austria, Canada, France, Iraq, Malaysia, Monaco, Mongolia, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia

Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.12/Rev.1 as a whole was adopted by 144 votes to 3, with 6 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.25. I call on the Secretary of the Committee. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.25, entitled "Consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco)". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Mexico at the Committee's 18th meeting, on 24 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.25 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, Bangladesh and Suriname have become sponsors. The Chairman: I should like to inform members that the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.25 have expressed the wish that it be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.25 was adopted. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.26/Rev.1. A recorded vote has been requested. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.26/Rev.1, entitled "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty". The draft resolution was

13

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Against: United States of America Abstaining: Colombia, Republic India, Mauritius, Syrian Arab

Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.26/Rev.1 was adopted by 149 votes to 1, with 4 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.36. A recorded vote has been requested. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.36, entitled "Nuclear disarmament". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Myanmar at the Committee's 10th meeting, on 12 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.36 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, Bangladesh and Malaysia have become sponsors. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, India, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malta, Mauritius, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Sweden, Ukraine, Uzbekistan Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.36 was adopted by 94 votes to 42, with 17 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.45. A recorded vote has been requested. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.45, entitled "Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure nonnuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Pakistan at the Committee's 16th meeting, on 20 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.45 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, Bangladesh and Iraq have become sponsors. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,

14

A/C.1/60/PV.18

El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: None Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.45 was adopted by 98 votes to none, with 55 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.46. A recorded vote has been requested. A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraph 1. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.46, entitled "Follow-up to the

advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Malaysia at the Committee's 9th meeting, on 11 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.46 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, Bangladesh has become a sponsor. The Committee will now proceed to take a separate vote on operative paragraph 1, which reads as follows: "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 disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control". A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, GuineaBissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon

15

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: Israel, Russian Federation, United States of America Abstaining: Belarus, France, Latvia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uzbekistan Operative paragraph 1 was retained by 142 votes to 3, with 5 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.46 as a whole. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.46 as a whole. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia,

Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uzbekistan Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.46 as a whole was adopted by 103 votes to 29, with 21 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.52. A recorded vote has been requested. I give the floor to the Committee Secretary to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.52 is entitled "Reducing nuclear danger". This draft resolution was introduced by the representative of India at the 9th meeting, held on 11 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.52 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. Bangladesh has also become a sponsor of the draft resolution. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,

16

A/C.1/60/PV.18

India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.52 was adopted by 94 votes to 45, with 14 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.54. A recorded vote has been requested. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. The Secretary: Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.54 is entitled "Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons". This draft resolution was introduced by the representative of India at the 9th meeting, on 11 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.54 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, the following countries

have become sponsors of the draft resolution: Malaysia and Bangladesh. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

17

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.54 was adopted by 97 votes to 46, with 11 abstentions. The Chairman: I now call upon delegations wishing to explain their vote after the vote. Mr. Mine (Japan): I would like to explain Japan's position in the voting on two draft resolutions. Regarding the first, in document A/C.1/60/L.36, entitled "Nuclear disarmament", we abstained in the vote. Japan shares the ultimate goal of the draft resolution, namely, the total elimination of nuclear weapons. In this regard, my delegation takes note of positive elements concerning nuclear disarmament in this draft. My delegation appreciates its reference to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a cornerstone of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament and that it incorporates some of the steps towards nuclear disarmament agreed in the final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. However, this draft resolution does not contain elements necessary for the international community, including nuclear-weapon States, to form an agreement on nuclear disarmament. My delegation firmly believes that steps towards nuclear disarmament should be realistic and progressive, with the involvement of the nuclear-weapon States. Therefore, my delegation would prefer to see a approach towards the shared goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons that is different from what is proposed in this draft resolution. Secondly, on the draft resolution contained in document A/C.1/60/L.46, entitled "Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", first of all, we highly appreciate Malaysia's sincere attitude and firm commitment to the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament, which resulted in the proposal of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.46. Japan also believes that because of their immense power to cause destruction, death and injury to human beings, the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to the fundamental humanitarianism that informs international law and provides its philosophical foundation. Therefore, we would like to stress that nuclear weapons should never be used again and continuous efforts should be made towards achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

However, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which this draft resolution addresses, clearly demonstrates the complexity of the subject. Japan supports the unanimous opinion of the judges of the Court on the existing obligations under international law to pursue nuclear disarmament and to conclude negotiations on the matter in good faith. Japan firmly believes that we must take concrete measures to achieve steady, stepby-step progress in nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. In this context, we believe it premature to call upon all States immediately to fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations leading up to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat of use or use of nuclear weapons. We believe that such steady, incremental progress should be made prior to our embarking on the negotiations which draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.46 urges all States to commence. This is the reason for Japan's abstention in the vote on this draft resolution. Mr. Rivasseau (France): I am speaking in English because I have asked for the floor on behalf of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France in order to explain our position on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.41, entitled "Nuclear-weaponfree Southern Hemisphere and adjacent areas". As in previous years, our three delegations voted against this draft resolution. Last year, we noted the reference in the draft resolution's preamble that recalled the applicable principles and rules of international law relating to the freedom of the high seas and the rights of passage through maritime space, including those of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We welcome, as usual, the acknowledgement of that important point; we do not want those principles and rules to be affected. But it would not affect the freedom of the high seas and the rights of passage through maritime space. We remain uncertain what value would be added by a Southern Hemisphere nuclear-weapon-free area over and above existing zones. In essence, we believe it is contradictory to simultaneously propose an area that would be composed largely of the high seas and effectively say that it would not apply to the high seas. We would

18

A/C.1/60/PV.18

question, therefore, whether the real goal of this draft resolution is the establishment of a nuclear-weaponfree zone covering the high seas. We do not believe that this ambiguity has been sufficiently clarified. For that reason, we voted against the draft resolution again this year. We would like to emphasize that we do not object in principle to the establishment of new nuclearweapon-free zones, which could make an important contribution to regional and global security provided they are supported by all States of the region concerned, and would be the subject of appropriate treaties, including general assurances provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Concerning draft decision A/C.1/60/L.11, entitled "United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament", our three countries indicated last year that they had to vote against it for reasons similar to those that I just expressed. Those reasons remain valid this year. Mr. Roa Arboleda (Colombia) (spoke in Spanish): My delegation is taking the floor in explanation of vote. As in past sessions of the First Committee, at the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, my delegation felt obliged to abstain in the voting on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.26/Rev.1, entitled "Comprehensive NuclearTest-Ban Treaty", despite Colombia's long-standing commitment to disarmament, nuclear control and monitoring and inspection systems. The Provisional Technical Secretariat of the Comprehensive NuclearTest-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) and the Preparatory Commission for the CTBTO are fully familiar with the constitutional difficulties that Colombia has encountered in becoming a State party to the Treaty. Our arguments have been expressed publicly and transparently over the past five years. Colombia reaffirms once again its unquestionable commitment to the spirit and letter of the Treaty and our willingness to propose formulas aimed at overcoming those constitutional impediments, which exclusively involve contributions to the Preparatory Commission before the ratification of the Treaty. My delegation is very grateful for the interest of various States in finding a solution to those impediments that will enable us to ratify the Treaty as soon as possible, which is our wish.

With regard to the proposal suggested by Colombia within the framework of the Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Treaty, we trust that it will be a subject for consideration by the Preparatory Commission for the CTBTO and its subsidiary bodies, with the advice of the Provisional Technical Secretariat. Mr. Meyer (Canada): I have taken the floor to explain Canada's vote in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6, entitled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East". It is important to ensure that our position is not misunderstood or misrepresented, and we will be vigilant in that regard. The fundamental goal of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6 is to recognize that the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would pose a serious threat to international peace and security and to propose positive steps to be taken to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in that region. Clearly, Israel's adherence to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a nonnuclear-weapon State would be such a positive step. On that basis, Canada voted in favour of this draft resolution last year and did so again this year. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon all States in the Middle East to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. While we voted in favour of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6 today, we are, at the same time, disappointed that it contains no reference to resolution GOV/2005/77, adopted by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 24 September 2005, which found Iran to be in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations pursuant to the NPT. The long history of Iran's concealment of its nuclear activities, revealed as a result of two years of IAEA investigation, remains a matter of serious concern to Canada. We believe that the reference in draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6 to universal adherence to the NPT and full compliance with its obligations applies to all States -- both those currently outside and those inside the Treaty. In Canada's view, draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6 could have been strengthened with the inclusion of a reference to Iran's non-compliance, accompanied by a call for Iran to comply fully with its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations and to cooperate fully with the IAEA in that regard.

19

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Ms. Sanders (United States of America): Regarding draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.5, my delegation has expressed clearly and repeatedly its disagreement with the inclusion of this item in our agenda. However, since once again we are going to address missiles as an agenda item, I am obliged to call the attention of all members to the many hours of diligent effort that the members of the second Panel of Governmental Experts expended the last time we took up this issue. In fact, the Panel made excellent progress and came very close to achieving a final report. In our view, it would be unfortunate -- even irresponsible -- to waste the efforts of the many people who participated in those Panel meetings by simply walking away from the results that they achieved. My delegation therefore believes that, however this issue is again addressed, the draft report of the second Panel of Governmental Experts should be the basis for beginning further work. Mr. Prasad (India): The Indian delegation has requested the floor to explain its vote on four draft resolutions under cluster 1. India abstained in the voting on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6, entitled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East", as a whole, and voted against its sixth preambular paragraph because we believe it necessary to limit the focus of the draft resolution to the region that it is intended to address. According to customary international law, as encapsulated in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, States adhere to treaties considered to be in consonance with their national interests on the basis of their freely exercised sovereign choice. The call for those States remaining outside the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to accede to it and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities is at variance with that principle. Our long-standing position on the NPT is well known. India joined the consensus on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.9, entitled "Prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes". However, the Indian delegation would like to state its position with regard to operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution. India has been fully supportive of the draft resolution's central objective and is among the few countries that have supported the retention of

radiological weapons on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament, because we believe that the international community must remain vigilant as to the grave dangers posed by nuclear and other radioactive wastes and the possibility of their misuse. Operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution refers to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. As a developing country, India attaches high importance not only to the safety but also to the full utilization of all aspects of the fuel cycle, to derive maximum benefits from it. Spent fuel is therefore not just a waste product but also a valuable resource, a position that India has consistently supported within the IAEA. As regards the draft resolution entitled "Nuclearweapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas", contained in document A/C.1/60/L.12, India voted against the last three words of operative paragraph 5 -- "and South Asia" -- and operative paragraph 5 as a whole while abstaining in the voting on the draft resolution as a whole. Operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution recognizes the well-established principle that nuclearweapon-free zones must be established on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. That same principle has not been applied, however, in calling for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia. This specific proposal logically has no greater validity than the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in many other parts of the world, such as East Asia, Western Europe or North America. We have therefore voted against operative paragraph 5 and abstained in the voting on the draft resolution as a whole. Finally, India has abstained in the voting on the draft resolution entitled "Nuclear disarmament", as contained in document A/C.1/60/L.36. It has been India's consistent view that the threat posed by nuclear weapons can be addressed only through their complete elimination in a progressive and systematic manner. As stated by our Prime Minister in Parliament recently, India's commitment to work for universal nuclear disarmament will remain our core concern. We very much share the objective of the draft resolution, which is to achieve the total elimination of nuclear weapons and establish a nuclear-weapon-free world.

20

A/C.1/60/PV.18

We have, however, been constrained to abstain in the voting on the draft resolution, since it incorporates references to the NPT, on which India's position is well known. Our vote in no way detracts from our support for the long-standing position of the Non-Aligned Movement on nuclear disarmament; indeed, the Movement has accorded the highest priority to that goal. Mr. MacLachlan (Australia): I take the floor in relation to draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6, entitled "Risk of non-proliferation in the Middle East". Australia supports the establishment of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We strongly support the universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and we have been consistent in our support for the General Assembly resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East freely arrived at among the States of the region. Regrettably, however, we continue to have substantive difficulties with the draft resolution entitled "The risk of non-proliferation in the Middle East", notably its emphasis on the State of Israel, with no reference to other Middle Eastern States of nuclear proliferation concern. In September, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors, reflecting continuing international concern about Iran's nuclear intentions, found Iran in non-compliance with its NPT Safeguard Agreement. The Board urged Iran to reestablish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related activity, including conversion and reprocessing activity, and to implement the transparency measures requested by the IAEA Director General. It is regrettable that the proposed draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6 makes no reference to the international community's serious concerns about this matter. Australia is committed to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and to the goal of a nuclear-weaponfree world. We will continue to promote those objectives within the NPT and in all other relevant international forums. Mr. Najafi (Islamic Republic of Iran): I am taking the floor to explain the position of my

delegation with respect to draft decision A/C.1/60/L.3 on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6 on the risk nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. The idea of the establishment of a nuclearweapon-free zone as an important disarmament and confidence-building measure in the region of the Middle East, first initiated by Iran in 1974, was followed by the adoption by the General Assembly of numerous resolutions on that question. Since 1980, the General Assembly has annually adopted by consensus a resolution on this issue. The repeated adoption of this resolution by the General Assembly is a manifestation of global support for the promotion of peace, security and stability in the Middle East through the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region. But, unfortunately, due to Israel's non-adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and, more importantly, the refusal of that regime to place its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification system, the realization of such a zone, a lofty and long-sought aspiration of the countries in the region, has yet to materialize. The irresponsible behaviour of that regime, supported by certain nuclear-weapon States in this respect, has put the establishment of such a zone in the region in the near future in serious doubt. As the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference indicates, all countries in the Middle East region, except for the Israeli regime, have become States parties to the Treaty. The risk of Israel's nuclear facilities therefore make it necessary for the international community to exert enough pressure on Israel so that it accedes to the NPT and places all its nuclear facilities under IAEA full-scope safeguards, in order to pave the way for the long-sought goal of the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. As a State party to the NPT, the Islamic Republic of Iran is fully committed to its international undertakings and believes that this international instrument is the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Universal adherence to this Treaty, in particular in the region of the Middle East, would effectively ensure the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region.

21

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Mr. Streuli (Switzerland) (spoke in French): I should like to explain Switzerland's vote on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.6, entitled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East". Switzerland this year once again voted in favour of draft resolution L.6. The draft calls for universal adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and is aimed at the only State in the region that has not yet ratified the Treaty. Switzerland supports those efforts and attaches great importance to the better implementation of existing obligations. We will continue to defend that position also in the area of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. In that context, full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is imperative. My country is concerned at the situation that led to the resolution on Iran, which was adopted on 24 September 2005 by the Agency's Board of Governors. Switzerland views the text of the draft resolution entitled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East" as a political appeal against nuclear proliferation in the region as a whole. To ensure the broadest possible support, it is critical that the authors of the draft resolution take into account the current context and all the events that affect the countries in the region. Mr. Bar (Israel): I am taking the floor to explain Israel's vote on the draft resolution entitled "Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East", contained in document A/C.1/60/L.3. Israel joined the consensus on this draft resolution, as it has done for more than 20 years, but with substantive and important reservations regarding certain elements of the draft resolution. This action was taken, since Israel continues to support the eventual establishment of a mutually verifiable nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East that should also be free of chemical and biological weapons, as well as ballistic missiles. The policy of Israel, as it has always maintained, is that the nuclear issue, as well as all regional security issues -- conventional and non-conventional -- should be addressed within the regional context. Experience in

other regions has shown that a regional nuclearweapon-free zone should emanate from within the region. Such a zone cannot be imposed on the parties from the outside, nor can it emerge before the conditions for it have ripened. Moreover, since the ultimate goal in the Middle East, as in other regions, is regional peace and security, arms control efforts should adequately address the threat perception of all participating States and must not hamper the security of any given party. Israel believes that the political realities in the Middle East mandate a practical step-by-step approach. The first step should be agreements on modest confidence-building measures, followed by the establishment of peaceful relations. The next steps would include a process of reconciliation, and good-neighbourliness, to be followed when ripe by negotiation on regional security arrangements that would be complemented by conventional and non-conventional arms control measures. This process could eventually lead to more ambitious goals, such as establishing a nuclearweapon-free zone. As the international community has recognized, the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone should be based on an arrangement freely arrived at among all the States and the regions concerned. Israel believes that such a zone can only be established through direct negotiations among the States in the region, and those directly concerned. Mutual recognition and peaceful relations are, of course, a necessary first step for the initiation of the process. It clearly cannot begin in a situation where some of the parties concerned still maintain a state of war with one another, refusing on principle to maintain peaceful relations with Israel, or even to recognize its right to exist. As a matter of fact, we had one State recently that could not even express the name "Israel", but rather, used the term "Israeli regime". In that context, it should be recalled that in the Middle East -- unlike other regions in the world where nuclear-weapon-free zones have been established -- there are continuing threats in the region and beyond, against the existence of one State -- Israel. Those threats are significantly increased by the irresponsible behaviour of certain States concerning the export of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and WMDrelated technologies, and the discrepancies between their commitments and their actual behaviour. Those

22

A/C.1/60/PV.18

circumstances, and the acknowledged record of noncompliance with international obligations by States of the region, have a critical impact on the ability to embark on a joint process of regional security-building, that could eventually lead to a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Let us bear in mind that out of four recognized cases of non-compliance with the NPT, three have taken place in the Middle East. Therefore, mutual verification arrangements and effective enforcement measures would be indispensable for guaranteeing that States' commitments are not breached. Israel has reiterated its vision of promoting regional peace and stability that should facilitate, among other things, the eventual establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Recently, Israel has reacted positively to direct initiatives, learning from the experiences of other regions, as a part of a gradual process of confidence-building. Unfortunately, not all parties in the region agree with the very concept of gradually building confidence. We harbour no illusions. Progress towards realizing that vision cannot be made without fundamental change in regional circumstances, and not least, without significant transformation in the attitude of States in the region towards Israel. Just as an illustration -- out of eight delegations that took the floor on the thematic debate, calling for the immediate establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, six do not have diplomatic relations with my country, and two of them still publicly call for the destruction of Israel. It is therefore our view that efforts in that context should be directed towards the creation of a stable environment of peace and reconciliation in our part of the world. The disengagement from the Gaza strip by Israel has been motivated by that objective, and therefore was implemented despite enormous internal difficulties. Israel will continue to dedicate all its efforts to achieve that goal. We call upon our neighbours to do the same. Mr. Moon Seoung-hyun (Republic of Korea): My delegation wishes to explain its position on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.45, entitled "Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure nonnuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons". As my delegation has pointed out on several occasions, it is our firm belief that non-

nuclear-weapon State parties to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), who have voluntarily committed to the path of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and who have remained in full compliance with NPT provisions, are entitled to be provided with credible and effective negative security assurances from the nuclear-weapon States. However, in view of logical consequences and in contrast to the argument just mentioned, we do not believe that such negative security assurances are of the nature to be provided to all State parties to the NPT, regardless of their behaviour in fulfilling their obligation under the NPT regime. Moreover, on a practical note, we are of the view that both creative and innovative confidence-building measures in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation should proceed to genuine discussions on providing legally binding negative security assurances, particularly taking into account the stalemate in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation that is plaguing us these days. That is why my delegation has again abstained in the vote on the draft resolution. Mr. Hashmi (Pakistan): I have taken the floor to explain our vote on draft resolutions A/C.1/60/L.12/Rev.1, L.26/Rev.1 and L.36. First, concerning draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.12/Rev.1, Pakistan supports the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of the principle that such arrangements are freely arrived at among the States of the regions concerned. However, the call for the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia in operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution betrays the reality on the ground. Pakistan had sought to promote that objective unsuccessfully for over two decades. Following the nuclear explosions in South Asia, which obliged Pakistan to follow suit, the purpose of creating a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region has been defeated. The reference to South Asia in the text is therefore at complete variance with the realities on the ground. That is why, in separate voting, we voted against the last three words in operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution, and abstained in the votes on operative paragraph 5 as a whole and on the draft resolution as a whole.

23

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Secondly, I will explain our vote on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.26/Rev.1. Pakistan has voted in favour of the draft resolution, in keeping with our longstanding and consistent record of support for the objectives of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). However, as regards the call in the draft resolution for promoting signatures and ratifications, leading to the entry into force of the CTBT, this of course be facilitated when major erstwhile supporters of the CTBT decide to restore their support. Acceptance of the CTBT obligations on a regional basis in South Asia will also facilitate its entry into force. Finally, on draft resolution L.36, Pakistan has consistently supported the goal of nuclear disarmament. We share the objectives the resolution seeks to achieve. However, the resolution's references to documents and documentation of the NPT Review Conferences has obliged my delegation to abstain, in line with our well-known position on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Mr. Kucer (Slovakia): My delegation would like to request that Slovakia be added to the list of sponsors of draft resolution L.26, "Comprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty", as Slovakia did co-sponsor that draft resolution but was not mentioned among the sponsors. Mr. Atieh (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): We requested the floor in order to explain our position on L.26/Rev.1, entitled "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty". My delegation abstained on the vote because Syria has stated time and again that such an important and sensitive treaty as the CTBT, as well as future commitments of States parties emanating therefrom, should in no way ignore the legitimate concerns of non-nuclear States. Non-nuclear States constitute the overwhelming majority of the States of the world and have received no guarantees concerning the non-use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These States are not allowed to acquire the sophisticated technology that is indispensable to accelerating the pace of their development. The fair and important observations made about the Treaty indicate that nuclear-weapon States are not committed to getting rid of their nuclear arsenals in a reasonable time frame. The text does not explicitly refer to the non-use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Nor does it emphasize the need to universalize the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons (NPT) or put an end to such proliferation in all its aspects. The text states that nuclear explosions are to be prohibited, but not laboratory testing or quality development or production of such weapons. Verification and inspection regimes in the field may open the way to the misuse of data coming from national monitoring machinery and to the use of such data for political purposes. The most peculiar part of the text of the Treaty is that it allows signatories to take measures against nonsignatories, including measures to be taken by the Security Council by virtue of Chapter VII, in violation of the sovereign rights of States to join the Treaty or not. The Syrian Arab Republic views those substantial loopholes with great concern. We definitively reject the mention of Israel in the list of Middle East and South East Asia countries. In the explosive situation in the Middle East, Israel is the only country that possesses nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction and is trying to develop them quantitatively and qualitatively. It refuses to join the NonProliferation Treaty and to submit its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards. Such actions impede the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and endanger the region and the world through the threat of an Israeli nuclear attack, without any effective international deterrence. Mr. Shaimerdenov (Kazakhstan) (spoke in Russian): I have taken the floor to ask the Bureau to take into account our intention to join the sponsors of resolution L.26/Rev.1, the "Comprehensive NuclearTest-Ban Treaty". Mr. Rahman (Bangladesh): We wish to put on record that Bangladesh has co-sponsored resolution L.26/Rev.1, "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty", but that was not mentioned during the voting. We wish to put that on record. The Chairman: Are there any other delegations wishing to take the floor to speak on cluster 1? If not, the Committee will take action on the draft resolutions that appear in cluster 2. Before the Committee proceeds to take action on all draft resolutions contained in cluster 2, I shall give the floor to those delegations wishing to make a general statement or to introduce draft resolutions. I give the floor to the representative of Belarus.

24

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Mr. Baichorov (Belarus): Now we will take action on the draft resolution contained in document A/C.1/60/L.10, introduced by the Republic of Belarus, with a number of co-sponsors: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Georgia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Venezuela, Ukraine and the Central African Republic. I am not going to repeat the arguments in favour of the adoption of the draft resolution that were already set out in the statement made by Ambassador Andrei Dapkiunas, Permanent Representative of Belarus to the United Nations, in the First Committee meeting on 12 October. I just want to remind delegations that the resolution, in its present form, has been adopted on a triennial basis by consensus by the General Assembly in 1996, 1999 and 2002. The accelerating speed of the emergence of new achievements in computer and nanotechnologies makes it technically feasible to develop and even to test new weapons of mass destruction without physically testing them. Just because computer wizards are working today at Microsoft and other respectable corporations does not preclude the possibility that, one day, one or two of them might be recruited by a terrorist organization. The world community must have a ready mechanism to react to the emergence of new types of weapons of mass destruction, no matter by whom or where they are developed. The draft resolution contained in document A/C.1/60/L.10* contains such a mechanism, and I am convinced that our Committee will adopt it without a vote. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on the two draft resolutions contained in cluster 2, "Other weapons of mass destruction". The Committee will first take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.10. A recorded vote has been requested. I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.10, entitled "Prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons

of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons: report of the Conference on Disarmament". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Belarus at the Committee's 10th meeting, on 12 October. The sponsors of the draft resolution are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.10 and A/C.1/60/INF.2. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia

25

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Against: United States of America Abstaining: Israel Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.10 was adopted by 150 votes to 1, with 1 abstention. The Chairman: The Committee will next proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.31. I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.31 is entitled "Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Poland at the Committee's 10th meeting, on 12 October. The sponsors are listed in document A/C.1/60/L.31. The Chairman: The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that it be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.31 was adopted. The Chairman: I now call on the representative of the United States of America for an explanation of vote. Ms. Sanders (United States of America): Regarding draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.10, our delegation believes that the international community should focus its efforts on the very real problem of the proliferation of known types of weapons of mass destruction, both by States that willfully violate their commitments with respect to existing treaties and by terrorists. In the nearly 60 years since the 1948 definition of weapons of mass destruction was set forth, no new types of such weapons have appeared on the horizon. The idea of new types of weapons of mass destruction beyond chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear remains entirely hypothetical. No useful purpose is served by diverting the attention and efforts of the

international community away from existing threats to such hypotheticals. For those reasons, the United States voted against the draft resolution. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolutions contained in informal working paper 1 under cluster 5, "Regional disarmament and security"; cluster 6, "Other disarmament measures and international security"; and cluster 7, "Disarmament machinery". Under cluster 5, there are two draft resolutions: A/C.1/60/L.23 and A/C.1/60/L.44. The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.23. I call on the Secretary of the Committee. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.23, entitled "Regional disarmament". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Pakistan at the Committee's 14th meeting, on 18 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.23 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, Bangladesh has become a sponsor. The Chairman: I wish to inform members that the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.23 have expressed the wish that it be adopted by the Committee without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.23 was adopted. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.44. A recorded vote has been requested. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.44, entitled "Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Pakistan at the Committee's 14th meeting, on 18 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.44 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, Bangladesh has become a sponsor. A recorded vote was taken.

26

A/C.1/60/PV.18

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zambia Against: India Abstaining: Bhutan Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.44 was adopted by 147 votes to 1, with 1 abstention. The Chairman: I now call on the representative of India, who wishes to speak in explanation of vote on the draft resolution just adopted.

Mr. Prasad (India): India has requested the floor to explain its vote on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.44, entitled "Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels". India voted against the draft resolution because we do not agree that the Conference on Disarmament should be asked -- as the operative part of the draft resolution does -- to consider the formulation of principles serving as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control. We believe that the Conference, as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, should concern itself with negotiating legal instruments of global application. The United Nations Disarmament Commission is the mandated deliberative body within the United Nations disarmament machinery. Its function is to consider and make recommendations on specific disarmament issues. Indeed, in 1993, the Commission adopted by consensus guidelines and recommendations for regional approaches to disarmament within the context of global security. We therefore see no need for the Conference on Disarmament to formulate principles for a framework for regional arrangements on conventional arms control. Moreover, we believe that security concerns of States extend beyond narrowly defined regions and subregions, and consequently that the idea of preserving a balance in defence capabilities in a regional or subregional context is unrealistic and unacceptable. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on two draft resolutions under cluster 6, "Other disarmament measures and international security". We will first take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.24. I call on the Secretary of the Committee. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.24, entitled "Confidencebuilding measures in the regional and subregional context". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Pakistan at the Committee's 16th meeting, on 20 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.24 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, Bangladesh has become a sponsor. The Chairman: I wish to inform members that the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.24 have expressed the wish that it be adopted by the Committee

27

A/C.1/60/PV.18

without a vote. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly. Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.24 was adopted. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.53. A recorded vote has been requested. I call on the Secretary of the Committee to conduct the voting. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.53, entitled "Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of India at the Committee's 14th meeting, on 18 October 2005. The sponsors are listed in documents A/C.1/60/L.53 and A/C.1/60/INF/2. In addition, Bangladesh has become a sponsor. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,

Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, Chile, Kazakhstan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.53 was adopted by 88 votes to 49, with 13 abstentions. The Chairman: The Committee will now proceed to take action on the draft resolution under cluster 7, "Disarmament machinery". The Committee will now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.20. I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.2 is entitled "Report of the Conference on Disarmament". The draft resolution was introduced by the representative of Peru at the Committee's 14th meeting, on 18 October 2005. The sponsors of the draft resolution are listed in document A/C.1/60/L.20. In addition, Bangladesh has now become a sponsor of the draft resolution. The Chairman: The sponsors of the draft resolution have expressed the wish that the draft resolution be adopted by the Committee without a vote. May I take it that the Committee wishes to act accordingly? Draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.20 was adopted. The Chairman: I representative of France. give the floor to the

Mr. Rivasseau (France) (spoke in French): Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank you for having given us the list of draft resolutions that you will be submitting to the Committee tomorrow. It is my understanding that that the draft resolutions on which we did not take decisions today will be considered tomorrow or a later date, but I would like a clarification in that respect.

28

A/C.1/60/PV.18

Finally, I should like to note that last week my delegation expressed the hope that the draft resolution on the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (A/C.1/60/L.2) would be among those draft resolutions adopted today or tomorrow. However, I do not see it listed either for today or for tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, I would therefore request that it be included in the list of draft resolutions to be considered tomorrow. The Chairman: Those draft resolutions originally contained in clusters 1 through 7 that were not adopted today will be considered, not necessarily tomorrow, but sometime this week. Our working documents will be distributed as informal working documents number 1 and number 2, respectively, so I would request that members please pay attention to the number of the working document. Tomorrow we will be dealing with informal working document number 2. Mr. Rivasseau (France) (spoke in French): Mr. Chairman, could you indicate that you will in fact add the draft resolution on the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research to the list of resolutions to be considered tomorrow? I would request that you do so, unless a delegation objects. Let me recall that it not up to you to oppose putting a draft resolution to the vote.

The Chairman: Let me explain. Informal paper number 2 originally listed seven draft resolutions. If there is no objection, I will add one more item on the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). Eight draft resolutions will therefore be considered tomorrow. If no other delegation wishes to take the floor, I should like to inform the Committee that at its next meeting it will continue to take action on those draft resolutions contained in informal working paper number 2, which was distributed to the Committee a short while ago. At its next meeting, the Committee will take action on the following draft resolutions: A/C.1/60/L.27, L.48, L.58, L.47, L.42, L.28, L.32/Rev.1 and the draft resolution on UNIDIR. I give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee. Ms. Stoute (Secretary of the Committee): There will be a meeting of the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.1/60/L.39, entitled "Preventing the risk of radiological terrorism", in this room immediately following the meeting. The delegation of France has asked for this meeting to present possible amendments to its draft for the sponsors' approval. The meeting rose at 5.45 p.m.

29