GA/DIS/3188

GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD WELCOME 2000 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE OUTCOME UNDER TERMS OF ONE OF NINE TEXTS APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

The General Assembly would welcome the consensus adoption on 19 May of the final document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), according to one of nine draft resolutions approved this afternoon in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The Committee approved the text by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 2 against (India, Cape Verde), with 3 abstentions (Cuba, Israel, Pakistan). (See Annex I for details of the vote.)

Four other nuclear-related texts were approved on: the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco); security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; Mongolia's international security and nuclear-weapon-free status; and establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia.

Concerning other weapons of mass destruction, texts were approved on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention), and on Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Two drafts on conventional weapons were also approved.

According to the text on security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States, the Assembly would reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all had also been pointed out. It would appeal to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work towards early agreement on a common approach that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character. It was approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 50 abstentions. (See Annex II.)

By a recorded vote of 144 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Republic of Korea, United States), the Assembly would renew its call on all States to strictly observe the principles andFirst Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3188 22nd Meeting (PM) 25 October 2000

objectives of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and reaffirm the vital necessity of upholding its provisions. (See Annex III.)

Under the draft resolution on the Consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), the Assembly would welcome the concrete steps taken by some countries of the region during the past year for the consolidation of the regime of military denuclearization established by the Treaty, and urge the countries of the region that had not yet done so to deposit their instruments of ratification of the amendments to the Treaty.

Concerning the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia, the Assembly would welcome the desire of the five States of the Central Asian region to finalize work on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia and the concrete steps that they had taken to prepare the legal groundwork for the initiative and the progress that they had achieved. The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

According to a draft text approved without a vote on Mongolia's nuclear- weapon-free status, the Assembly would welcome the joint statement of the five nuclear-weapon States to provide security assurances to Mongolia in connection with its nuclear-weapon-free status, as a contribution to implementing the relevant General Assembly resolution of 1998. At the same time, the Assembly would appeal to the Member States of the Asia-Pacific region to support Mongolia's efforts to join the relevant regional security and economic arrangements.

The Assembly would urge all States parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) to meet, in full and on time, their obligations under the Convention and to support the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in its implementation activities, by the terms of another text approved today without a vote.

Under the terms of a text on the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, also approved without a vote, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to continue his broad-based consultations, within available financial resources and with any other assistance provided by States, and to provide the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects with information on the magnitude and scope of illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, measures to combat illicit trafficking in and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and the role of the United Nations in collecting, collating, sharing and disseminating information on illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons.

Also approved without a vote, a draft on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) would have the Assembly call upon all States that had not yet done so to take measures to become parties to the Convention and its

First Committee - 1b - Press Release GA/DIS/3188 22nd Meeting (PM) 25 October 2000

protocols. It would also call on successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to those instruments would be universal.

The representatives of South Africa and Mongolia introduced revisions to draft texts.

Statements were also made by the representatives of the United Kingdom, Cuba, Canada and Iran. Pakistan, India, Nepal, Republic of Korea, Australia, United States, Egypt, Israel and Sierra Leone spoke in explanation of vote.

The representative of Cape Verde informed the Secretariat that his vote had been incorrectly recorded in the vote 2000 NPT Review Conference, and he had intended to vote in favour.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 26 October, to continue taking action on all disarmament- and security-related draft resolutions.

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3188 22nd Meeting (PM) 25 October 2000

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to begin the third stage of its work, namely action on disarmament and security-related draft resolutions. It had before it five drafts on nuclear weapons, two on other weapons of mass destruction and two on conventional weapons.

According to its programme of work, the Committee will act on a total of 50 draft resolutions during its current session. The drafts have been grouped into 10 clusters. They include 18 texts under nuclear weapons, three under other weapons of mass destruction, one under outer space (disarmament aspects), five under conventional weapons and three under regional disarmament and security. It will also act on two drafts under confidence-building measures, including transparency in armaments, 11 under disarmament machinery, four under other disarmament measures, one under related matters of disarmament and international security and two under international security.

A draft resolution sponsored by Algeria on the 2000 Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference (document A/C.1/55/L.7) would have the Assembly welcome the consensus adoption on 19 May of the final document of the Review Conference, including in particular the documents entitled �Review of the operation of the Treaty, taking into account the decisions and the resolution adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference� and �Improving the effectiveness of the strengthened review process for the Treaty�.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) (document A/C.1/55/L.8), the Assembly would welcome the concrete steps taken by some countries of the region during the past year for the consolidation of the regime of military denuclearization established by the Treaty.

The Assembly would also urge the countries of the region that had not yet done so to deposit their instruments of ratification of the amendments to the Treaty approved by the General Conference of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean in its resolutions 267 (E-V), 268 (XII) and 290 (E-VII).

The draft resolution is sponsored by Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.

According to a draft text on negative security assurances (document A/C.1/55/L.36), the Assembly would reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all had also been pointed out. The Assembly would note with satisfaction that there was no objection in the Conference on Disarmament, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to grant such assures to non-nuclear-weapon States, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach and, in particular, on a common approach acceptable to all had also been pointed out.

The Assembly would appeal to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and, in particular, on a common formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character. The Assembly would recommend that further intensive efforts be devoted to the search for such a common approach or formula and that the various alternative approaches, including, in particular, those considered in the Conference, be further explored in order to overcome the difficulties.

It would also recommend that the Conference actively continue intensive negotiations with a view to reaching early agreement and concluding effective international arrangements, taking into account the widespread support for the conclusion of an international convention and giving consideration to any other proposals designed to secure the same objective.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People�s Republic of Korea, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mayanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Viet Nam.

According to a draft text sponsored by Mongolia on Mongolia's international security nuclear-weapon-free status (document A/C.1/55/L.40/Rev.1), the Assembly would welcome the joint statement of the five nuclear-weapon States to provide security assurances to Mongolia in connection with its nuclear-weapon-free status, as a contribution to implementing General Assembly resolution 53/77D of 1998. It would request the Security Council to take note of that statement.

At the same time, the Assembly would appeal to the Member States of the Asia-Pacific region to support Mongolia's efforts to join the relevant regional security and economic arrangements. It would endorse and support Mongolia's good-neighbourly and balanced relationship with its neighbours as an important element of strengthening regional peace, security and stability. It would invite Member States to cooperate with Mongolia in taking the necessary measures to consolidate and strengthen its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, the inviolability of its borders, its economic security, ecological balance and its nuclear-weapon-free status, as well as its independent foreign policy.

By the terms of draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon- free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/55/L.45/Rev.1) the General Assembly would welcome the desire of the five States of the Central Asian region to finalize work on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia and the concrete steps that they had taken to prepare the legal groundwork for the initiative and the progress that they had achieved. It would call upon the five States to continue their dialogue with the five nuclear-weapon States on the establishment of the nuclear-weapon-free zone and request the Secretary- General to continue to provide assistance to the Central Asian States in the elaboration of a treaty on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

A text sponsored by Canada and Poland on the Convention of the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) (document A/C.1/55/L.18) would have the Assembly urge all States parties to the Convention to meet in full and on time their obligations under the Convention and to support the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in its implementation activities. The Assembly would stress the importance to the Convention that all possessors of chemical weapons, chemical weapons production facilities or chemical weapons facilities, including previously declared possessor States, should be among the States parties to the Convention, and would welcome progress to that end.

By further terms, the Assembly would stress the importance of the OPCW in verifying compliance with the Convention�s provisions, as well as in promoting the timely and efficient accomplishment of all its objectives. It would also stress the vital importance of full and effective implementation of and compliance with all provisions of the Convention.

By the terms of a draft resolution on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/C.1/55/L.20), sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Countries, the General Assembly would renew its call on all States to observe strictly the principles and objectives of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and reaffirm the vital necessity of upholding its provisions. The text would also have the Assembly call on States that continued to maintain reservations to the Protocol to withdraw those reservations.

A draft resolution on illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons (A/C.1/55/L.38) would have the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to continue his broad-based consultations, within available financial resources and with any other assistance provided by States, and to provide the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects with information on the magnitude and scope of illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, measures to combat illicit trafficking in, and circulation of, small arms and light weapons, and the role of the United Nations therein.

It would also encourage States to promote regional and subregional initiatives and request the Secretary-General and States in a position to do so, to assist States taking such initiatives to address the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons in affected regions. It would encourage States to take appropriate national measures to destroy surplus, confiscated or collected small arms and light weapons, and to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to the Secretary-General on types and quantities of arms destroyed as well as the methods of their destruction.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, C�te d�Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

A draft text on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) (document A/C.1/55/L.50) would have the Assembly call upon all States that had not yet done so to take all measures to become parties to the Convention and its Protocols as soon as possible, and particularly to amended Protocol II, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to that instrument at an early date. The Assembly would also call upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to those instruments would be universal.

The Assembly would also call upon States parties to the Convention that had not yet done so, to express their consent to be bound by the protocols annexed to the Convention. It would welcome the convening on 11 to 13 December of the second Annual Conference of States Parties to amended Protocol II, and call upon all such parties to address at that meeting the issue of holding the third annual conference in 2001. It would recall the decision of the States parties to the Convention to convene the next Review Conference no later than 2001 preceded by a Preparatory Committee and recommend that the Review Conference be held in December 2001 in Geneva.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom and the United States.

Introduction of Drafts

PHILIP DU PREEZ (South Africa) introduced the revised draft resolution on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/C.1/55/L.20/Rev.1), which would be considered under cluster 2. Since introducing the text in his capacity as Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, another States party to the Geneva Protocol had withdrawn its reservation. In order to give appropriate recognition to that step, it had been proposed that the word "one" in operative paragraph 2 be replaced by "two" and that the word "State" becomes "States".

The new operative paragraph 2 would read as follows:

"Notes with appreciation the recent withdrawal of reservations by two States parties to the Geneva Protocol.

He would again request that the draft be adopted with maximum support.

In the draft resolution on illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/55/L. 38/Rev.1), he said operative paragraph 1 had been revised in order to make clear what the Secretary-General was being asked to consult on. Apart from the addition, the text used the same language that was adopted without a vote at the fifty-third and fifty-fourth Assembly sessions. The new operative paragraph would now read:

"Requests the Secretary-General to continue his broad-based consultations, within available financial resources and with any other assistance provided by States in a position to do so, and to provide the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects with information on the magnitude and scope of illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, measures to combat illicit trafficking in and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and therole of the United Nations in collecting, collating, sharing andisseminating information on illicit trafficking in small arms and lightweapons."

J. ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia), introducing a draft resolution on Mongolia�s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status (document A/C.1/55/L.40/Rev.1), said that following consultations with interested delegations after the first version of the draft resolution was introduced, the following changes had been made to the text:

The sixth preambular paragraph would now read: �Welcoming the measures taken to implement the resolution 53/77D at the national and international levels.�

The seventh preambular paragraph would now read: �Recalling that in the final document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was held at the United Nations Headquarters from 24 April to 19 May 2000, the Conference welcomed, in paragraph 8 of the section concerning article VII of the Treaty, the declaration by Mongolia of its nuclear-weapon-free status and took note of the adoption by the Mongolian Government of legislation defining and regulating that status.�

Operative paragraph 4 would become a preambular paragraph and would read: �Taking note also of the fact that the joint statement has been transmitted to the United Nations Security Council by the five nuclear-weapon States�.

He said that the draft resolution was non-controversial, constructive and forward-looking. Its adoption and implementation would allow Mongolia to contribute to the objectives of non-proliferation, to greater predictability and stability in its region.

Statements on Texts

IAN SOUTAR (United Kingdom) briefly outlined his approach to the consideration of the draft resolutions contained in cluster 1 on nuclear disarmament. He said that when introducing the first of the drafts on which the Committee would take action today, namely on the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (document A/C.1/55/L.7), the representative of Algeria had referred to the remarkable achievements of the Conference: the balanced review of the implementation of the Treaty's provisions since its indefinite extension in 1995; the agreement on realistic and practical steps to further advance the process of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and to strengthen cooperation in the peaceful application of nuclear energy; as well as the agreement on improving the effectiveness of the strengthened review process for the Treaty.

He said that those were indeed remarkable achievements. The final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference set out, in a balanced way, a number of practical steps for the achievement of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom stood by all of those undertakings. It also believed that it was right for the General Assembly to welcome the outcome of the Conference, and stood ready to support the draft resolution. A number of other texts had been submitted, which their authors claimed had sought to reflect the outcome of the Conference by incorporating language from the final document to update previous resolutions. While respecting the authors' intentions, he must sound a note of caution.

Those present here and at the NPT Review Conference recalled only too vividly that the final document had emerged as the product of laboriously achieved compromise, he said. Those compromises risked being undermined if the language of the final document was quoted selectively or was subjected to interpretations which its authors had not agreed in the course of the Review Conference itself. For that reason, the United Kingdom would determine its position on the other nuclear disarmament resolutions after an assessment of how faithfully those reflected the letter and spirit of the final document.

RODOLFO ELISEO BENITEZ VERSON (Cuba) said that the provisions of the NPT were discriminatory. Those provisions legitimized a select club of nuclear- weapon States who were not even obliged to submit their nuclear arsenals to international safeguards. That was why Cuba had not signed or ratified the NPT. Cuba would continue, in a transparent way, to develop its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes and to work for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. His country had submitted all its nuclear facilities to the IAEA safeguards, which it was strictly abiding by. Its participation in the NPT Review Conference as an observer demonstrated its seriousness.

He hoped that the nuclear-weapon States would live up to the commitments they had assumed under the Review Conference outcome. Some States had expressed optimism about that outcome but there was no ground for complacency, when there was still no deadline for eliminating the remaining nuclear weapons. His country would not vote in favour of draft resolutions that made reference to the discriminatory paragraphs contained in the outcome of the Review Conference.

CHRISTOPHER WESTADAL (Canada) said he wished to speak in support of the draft resolution on the NPT Review Conference (document A/C.1/55/L.7). He congratulated the Algerian Ambassador on his highly skillful leadership of that highly successful Review, which had produced a landmark consensus declaration and an unprecedented unequivocal undertaking, as well as an impressive programme of multilateral, bilateral and nuclear-weapon States' work towards the Treaty's success. Widespread skepticism had been confounded, accountability was kept in tact, and new hope was born. Some States here were not party to the NPT. He nonetheless believed that it served their interests as well, as it served the global security interest shared by all. He urged them to recognize that common ground and urged them to join in its defence.

HAMID ESLAMIZAD (Iran), speaking on the draft resolution on Mongolia�s international security and nuclear-weapon-free status, expressed his country�s support for universal eradication of nuclear weapons. The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones was a step in the direction of the total elimination of such weapons. The implementation of the draft resolution would pave the way for the establishment of peace and stability in that region.

Action on Texts

The representative of Pakistan said he wished to explain his vote on the draft resolution on the results of the NPT Review Conference. He had already expressed the view that the sense of optimism which he had witnessed in the Committee during its present session was perhaps due in large measure to the consensus achieved at the NPT Review Conference. He had also congratulated the distinguished Chairman of the Conference and others involved for their admirable efforts to achieve that consensus. Perhaps if certain other States had been present, however, the nature of that consensus might have been somewhat different. His country had had the opportunity on 23 October to express its views on some of the provisions of the NPT outcome, which were inconsistent with Pakistan's national security interests and policies and were, thus, unacceptable.

For that reason, he said, his delegation could not agree to the provision in the text welcoming the results of the NPT Conference. It would, therefore, be obliged to abstain in the vote on the text.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the NPT Review Conference (document A/C.1/55/L.7) by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to two against (Cape Verde, India), with 3 abstentions (Cuba, Israel, Pakistan). (For details, see Annex I).

The representative of India, speaking in explanation of vote on the draft resolution on the 2000 NPT Review Conference, said that the Treaty remained both discriminatory and ineffective. It turned a blind eye to reality and had proved to be inadequate and ineffective. The proliferation of nuclear weapons had continued and the nuclear-weapon States had been active participants or silent spectators in that proliferation. The resolution welcomed the outcome of the NPT Review Conference which contained references to India, although India was not a party to the NPT. The euphoria of the Review Conference had proved to be hollow and attempts at meaningful negotiations on nuclear disarmament had been futile. India could not be a party to that situation.

The representative of Cape Verde said that his vote had been incorrectly recorded. He had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution.

The representative of Nepal, speaking after the vote on the resolution just approved, said that at a time when nuclear disarmament needed to be pursued with all seriousness, the draft resolution vindicated the position of his delegation, which had accorded high priority to the issue. During the general debate, he had emphasized the importance his delegation had attached to that issue. The outcome of the Review Conference was basically the unequivocal commitment by nuclear-weapon States to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. That commitment should be welcomed. Hopefully, all of the commitments would be translated into action sooner, rather than later.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), (document A/C.1/55/L.8) without a vote.

The draft resolution on conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.36) was approved by a vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 50 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex II).

Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the Republic of Korea said that his country upheld the position that non-nuclear-weapon States had a legitimate right to expect assurances from nuclear-weapons States that they would not use such weapons against them. The nuclear-weapon States also had a responsibility to assure the non-nuclear-weapon States, which were parties to the NPT, that such weapons would not be used against them. Those mutual concerns had not been adequately addressed by the draft resolution. That was why his country abstained.

The representative of India said that the only credible guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons lay in their total elimination. Until that objective was achieved, as an interim measure, there existed an obligation on the part of States possessing nuclear weapons to assure non- nuclear-weapon States that they would not use such weapons against them. Such assurance should be of international character and without discrimination. Conscious of its responsibility as a nuclear-weapon State, India had given the commitment not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. It was willing to convert that commitment into a legal obligation.

The representative of Australia, also speaking after the vote on the negative security assurances text, said that pending the elimination of nuclear weapons, negative security assurances were essential reinforcing elements underpinning the international non-proliferation and disarmament regime. Those non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT, which had renounced the nuclear- weapon option and were in full compliance with the Treaty, had a legitimate claim to credible, comprehensive and effective negative security assurances from the five nuclear-weapon States. Such assurances were also an important inducement for the few States still outside the Treaty to accede to it. The failure of the draft resolution to give due primacy to the particular claims and interests of States parties in that regard had regrettably prevented him from supporting it.

Next, the Committee turned to the draft resolution on Mongolia's international security and nuclear-weapon-free status (document A/C.1/55/L.40/Rev.1) and approved it without a vote.

The representative of the United States said that, regarding the request that the text be adopted without a vote, his country would continue to cooperate in the implementation of the text, as it had with the previous text. He hoped, other United Nations members and bodies would continue to lend their cooperation and support, as necessary, for that endeavour.

The representative of India said he had joined the consensus. Mongolia was a country with which India had an extremely close and friendly relationship. Mongolia also enjoyed a unique position. In pursuit of its objective, it had taken a number of concrete measures, including the adoption of national legislation. He also supported the Mongolian representative's statement reaffirming its readiness to cooperate with all Member States and relevant United Nations bodies in enhancing the effectiveness and strengthening the credibility of its non-nuclear weapon status. His country fully respected Mongolia's choice and extended its assistance and support. In order to be effective and credible, security assurance should be unambiguous and internationally binding. All Member States , particularly those that possessed nuclear weapons, should respond positively to the full realization and strengthening of Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/55/L.45/Rev.1) without a vote.

Speaking in explanation after adoption, the representative of India said it was noteworthy that the draft resolution was supported by all the States of the region. His country respected the choice of the States of Central Asia and would work for the early realization of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia.

The representative of Nepal said that his delegation supported the draft resolution because the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones was one of the effective confidence-building measures.

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution on the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/55/L.18).

The representative of Egypt, speaking before action on the text, said his country had always supported measures to internationally ban the use of weapons of mass destruction and had committed itself to that objective. Thus, he sympathized with the general thrust of the draft, which sought to eliminate chemical weapons. It would nevertheless stress its well known position with regard to the Convention and its implications in the Middle East. Its commitment regarding a ban on chemical and all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East hinged on a solemn declaration by all States in the region to that effect. Although the Egyptian delegation had participated actively in the arduous consultations in the Conference on Disarmament leading to the Chemical Weapons Convention, its position had been voiced since that treaty's opening for signature in January 1993.

He said his country's view in that regard had been firmly based on its regional considerations and concerns. For so long now, Israel had repeatedly stated that the application of that Convention should include all States in the Middle East, within a mutually accepted verification mechanism. He was not at odds, for once, with Israel on that position. His Government shared that view, but in a wider spectrum all countries in the Middle East except Israel were party to the NPT. Israel had also refused to place its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. He had not request a recorded vote on the text, but he did not considered himself part of any consensus decision on the text today.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/55/L.18) without a vote.

The representative of Israel said he wished to shape the Chemical Weapons Convention into a workable mechanism. Signing it had reflected his country's vision and commitment to work towards a ban on chemical weapons. It would reaffirm that commitment. It had also hoped that, upon signing, other countries would soon follow suit. The known users of chemical weapons in the past continued to strive to improve their chemical capabilities. Unfortunately, none of those countries had signed or ratified the Convention or expressed any intention to do so. The issue of chemical disarmament and that of other weapons of mass destruction should be dealt with in a regional context.

He said his country had not yet ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. Upon signing it, his delegation had said it would seek to ratify it, subject to, among others, regional security concerns. Those considerations remained no less

valid today, as those concerns had not diminished, but had increased. Joining consensus today must not prejudge his country's decision to ratify the Convention. Positive changes in the climate of the Middle East would be a major factor governing that decision.

The Committee next approved the draft resolution on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/C.1/55/L.20/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 144 in favor to none against, with 4 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Republic of Korea, United States) (Annex III).

The representative of Iran, speaking after the vote, said that the adoption of the draft resolution was a manifestation of the will of the international community to ban the use of biological weapons. After many years of negotiation, the biological weapons convention was concluded. Under existing instruments, the use of chemical and biological weapons was banned. Those weapons could not be used under any circumstances. The draft resolution was both timely and relevant. He was pleased that the draft resolution was widely and increasingly supported. It was also grateful to those governments that had withdrawn their reservations to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and to all countries that had supported the draft resolution.

The representative of Sierra Leone, speaking on the cluster on conventional weapons, said that his country attached great importance to the issues being considered under conventional weapons. His country did not manufacture those weapons and could not control their flow into its territory. Sierra Leone had never used its territory to condone the illicit flow of those arms. The international community needed to take effective action to curb the illicit flow of those weapons. Sierra Leone had observed the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) moratorium for controlling the export of small arms. Other States should respect that moratorium. He hoped that support for the resolutions to be considered under conventional weapons would provide new momentum in the pursuit of stability and good neighbourliness in the West Africa region and would also lead to more support for rehabilitation programmes in Sierra Leone, West Africa and the rest of Africa.

Turning to the draft resolution on illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.38/Rev.1), the Committee Secretary announced that the following countries had joined as co-sponsors: Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Slovakia and Liechtenstein.

The draft text on illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons was approved without a vote.

Next, the Committee Secretary turned to the draft resolution on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.50). He announced that Togo had joined as a co-sponsor.

The draft was approved without a vote.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on 2000 NPT Review Conference

The draft resolution on the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Perliferation of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/55/L/7) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In Favour: Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People�s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Cape Verde, India.

Abstain: Cuba, Israel, Pakistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, C�te d�Ivoire, Democratic People�s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Arrangements on Security Assurances

The draft resolution on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/55/L.36) was approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 0 against, with 50 abstentions, as follows:

In Favour: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People�s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People�s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, C�te d�Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on 1925 Geneva Protocol

The draft resolution on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/C.1/55/L.20) was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 0 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In Favour: Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People�s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People�s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:

Abstain: Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Republic of Korea, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, C�te d�Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

* *** *

United Nations