Five Other Texts Approved on South-East Europe, Verification, Central Africa, Disarmament Special Session, Disarmament Advisory Board
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) this morning approved 5 draft resolutions and one draft decision, including an amended text on the preservation of and compliance with the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti- Ballistic Missile Systems -- the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty –- signed by the Russian Federation and the United States.
According to the text, sponsored by Belarus, China and the Russian Federation, the General Assembly would call for renewed efforts by each of the States parties to preserve and strengthen it through full and strict compliance. It would also call on the parties to limit the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems and to refrain from the deployment of such systems for a defence of the territory of its country. The resolution was approved by a vote of 54 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Latvia, Federated States of Micronesia, United States), with 73 abstentions (For details of the vote see Annex III).
Under an amendment submitted by France to the operative portion of the text, the Assembly would urge all Member States to support efforts aiming at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. A new preambular paragraph would have the Assembly recall the widespread concern about the proliferation of those weapons and their means of delivery. The Committee approved the amendments by a vote of 22 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 95 abstentions. (Annex II).
In presenting the amendments, the representative of France said that the unprecedented circumstances created by one of the States parties to the ABM Treaty had made it a priority matter to evolve a draft text that would be compatible with the concerns of all States. Incorporating two main elements into the text, namely the preservation of that cornerstone Treaty and combating the proliferation of ballistic missiles, had enabled her delegation to support it.
The United States representative, who had opposed both the draft and the amendments, said an obsolete Treaty did not produce stability; it only created the illusion of stability. His country could not ignore the emergence of new
First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3161 24th Meeting (AM) 5 November 1999
threats or new technologies that might be used to protect against them. Thus, it rejected the idea that a 27-year old Treaty could not be amended to reflect the current realities.
Several delegations who had either opposed or abstained in the two votes explained that a bilateral dialogue between the two parties was the best way to facilitate the attainment of ballistic missile control. The representative of Latvia said “taking the initiative out of the hands of the initiators” might damage the Treaty.
Speaking on behalf of several European countries, the German representative said the manner in which the matter had been raised in the Committee did not have the support of both parties to the Treaty. Many European delegations had underlined the need for a consensus text from the very early stages of discussion, but regrettably, it had not been possible for the parties to the Treaty to reach an agreement on the issue. Both the Russian Federation and the United States, however, had reaffirmed, in statements, their commitment to the ABM Treaty.
According to a draft resolution sponsored by Belarus, China and the Russian Federation, on the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty) (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1), the Assembly, recognizing the historic role of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of 26 May 1972 as a cornerstone for maintaining international peace and security and strategic stability, would call for continued efforts to strengthen the Treaty and to preserve its integrity and validity so that it remained a cornerstone of global strategic stability and world peace and in promoting further strategic nuclear arms reductions.
In a related provision, the Assembly would call for renewed efforts by each of the States parties to the ABM Treaty to preserve and strengthen it through full and strict compliance. It would also call on the parties to the Treaty to limit the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems and to refrain from the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems for a defence of the territory of its country and not to provide a base for such a defence and not to transfer to other States or to deploy outside its national territory, ABM systems or their components limited by the Treaty.
The Assembly would consider that the implementation of any measure undermining the purposes and provisions of the Treaty would also undermine global strategic stability and world peace and the promotion of further strategic nuclear arms reductions. The Assembly would support further efforts by the international community in the light of emerging developments with the goal of safeguarding the inviolability and integrity of the ABM Treaty in which the international community bore strong interest. It would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fifth session.
By the terms of the provisional amendment submitted by France (document A/C.1/54/L.56), a seventh preambular paragraph would be added, as follows:
“Recalling finally the widespread concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.”
After operative paragraph 4, a new paragraph would be added, as follows:
“Urges all Member States to support efforts aiming at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.”
The Chairman said that since the morning’s work programme had been completed the Committee should consider taking up the draft resolution on preservation and compliance with the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1).
The representative of Jordan said the presentation of the resolution was late in reaching his delegation, and asked for more time to consider the important French proposal.
The representative of the Russian Federation said that delegations had had 24 hours to review the draft resolution and that he wished for a vote today.
The Chairman clarified that there was still one hour left before the full twenty-four hour period since delegations had received the text.
The representative of Brazil said his delegation was prepared to vote on all the draft resolutions now.
The representative of Belarus said he agreed with Brazil and believed the Committee needed to think of effective use of time and resources.
The representative of Kenya supported Brazil’s desire for a vote now, saying his delegation was ready for action on all draft texts.
The representative of China agreed with the two previous speakers.
The Chairman announced a one-hour adjournment of the meeting to allow for the 24-hour period.
Action on Texts
The representative of the United States, speaking before the vote on the amendments sponsored by France (document A/C.1/54/L.56) to the draft resolution on the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1), said he would vote “no” on the amendments. While he shared the substantive concerns reflected in the amendments, it had been a mistake to consider those concerns in connection with the draft resolution. Those amendments had not fixed the resolution. Also, he would oppose the draft, with or without the amendments.
The representative of Jordan said he was not comfortable with the amendments introduced yesterday by the representative of France, even though those had dealt with a very important domain of disarmament, namely the non- proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Whenever possible, his delegation had supported the votes on issues of non-proliferation and would certainly continue to do so, particularly in a neighbourhood where the closest neighbour had a programme that had made his country rather uncomfortable. Non- proliferation in his region and others would be welcome, but including the non- proliferation issue in the domain of maintaining the ABM Treaty had very much diluted and blurred the issue. If he were to be intellectually honest, he would vote against the amendment. In order not to be “more royalist than the King”, he would abstain in the vote.
The representative of Syria said he had welcomed the ABM Treaty, as that Treaty had enhanced stability and strategic balance and had constituted an important part of bilateral and multilateral agreements. The amendments, however, were far removed from the main objective of the draft under consideration, and had deviated from its main direction. Those had encouraged violations of the ABM Treaty, and had therefore fallen outside the draft’s perspective. He would abstain in the vote.
The representative of Iran said he would vote in favour of the draft resolution for obvious reasons -- the ABM Treaty had been one of the main foundations of global security and had served as an essential element in maintaining stability and global strategic balance. The Treaty had also played an important role in restraining the arms race, particularly among the nuclear- weapon States. The expected overwhelming Committee support for the draft would manifest the strong desire of the international community to preserve the integrity of the ABM Treaty. In the same spirit, he would abstain in the vote on the amendments. While sharing some of the main points elaborated yesterday by the French delegation, the amendments were not consistent with the spirit of the text, which had called for the unequivocal support for the preservation of and compliance with the ABM Treaty.
He said the concepts envisaged in the amendments might be misinterpreted to go against the spirit of the draft. Those amendments should be improved to better reflect the current realities. Although the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction had truly threatened international security, that would not be completely reversed unless those weapons were outlawed and destroyed under effective international control. Their continued proliferation had been a major concern of the global community, which had concluded conventions on biological and chemical weapons for that reason.
He said his delegation had been willing to rectify the shortcomings inherent in the amendment, but due to the complexity of the issues related to the draft, the late submission of the amendments and the consultations with the sponsors of the text, it had decided not to push for any further complicating amendment.
The representative of South Africa said the amendments and the emphasis placed on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems had been fully in line with his Government’s policy. While those amendments had been acceptable in terms of South Africa’s national policies, those had not been appropriately proposed. He would, therefore, abstain in the vote on the amendments. In the event of their adoption, he would vote in favour of the amended draft resolution as a whole.
The representative of Pakistan said the draft resolution had related to a very specific subject, namely the preservation of and compliance with the ABM Treaty. A position should be taken on the draft on the basis of its own merits, rather than have it be distracted by any discriminatory positions. Efforts were being made to eliminate the threat of the proliferation of chemical weapons. The Biological Weapons Convention had existed for many years, and efforts were currently under way to strengthen it through a protocol. Only nuclear weapons had been the subject of widespread concern, because those had existed in the thousands and because some nuclear-weapon States had sought to perpetuate discriminatory and double standards concerning related policies and programmes.
He said the reason for the amendments had not been understood and seemed to be designed to impose on the resolution the discrimination inherent in the policies of some States who had preached restraint by some countries not to acquire or produce those weapons, while keeping those weapons for themselves. He would have opposed the amendments, but because the co-sponsors of the draft had decided to abstain, his delegation would also do so.
The amendments (document A/C.1/54/L.56) were approved, by a vote of 22 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 95 abstention (Annex II).
The representative of Iraq, speaking before the vote on the draft on the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1), said the Treaty was the cornerstone of maintaining strategic balance and stability in the world today. Since 1972 it had contributed to the limitation of development and deployment of anti- ballistic missiles in the Soviet Union and the United States. It had played a significant role in the creation of a favourable climate for the nuclear disarmament process.
He said that the United States was endeavouring to weaken the Treaty, contrary to the desire of the Russian Federation and the majority of the international community, and their aim was clear -- to obtain absolute strategic superiority at the expense of the security of others. That aim extended to systems that did not exclude outer space.
As an Arab State, he was concerned that the United States continued bilateral cooperation with Israel on a new defensive missile programme. The missile successfully tested by Israel several days ago was a result of that cooperation and launched a new stage of the arms race, based on reneging on international conventions already in force. That seriously jeopardized peace and security, as well as diverting more material and resources for the military, rather than economic and social development. He strongly supported the draft in its original form, and he called on other States to follow suit.
The representative of India said that the ABM Treaty was an important legal instrument of continuing relevance to the international community. Each party undertook not to deploy anti-ballistic missiles for the defence of its territory, which was a substantial factor in limiting the arms race. The current resolution reaffirmed the premise of the Treaty. All disarmament agreements took place after the ABM Treaty and, until an alternative process was in place, it would still be a relevant concern of the international community. Non-compliance with the Treaty had global consequences.
India had closely followed discussions on the various draft texts, she said, and supported the objective of the co-sponsors in expressing the Assembly’s concern over the development of new missile defence systems. There was an imperative need for stemming such deployments and strengthening the ABM Treaty. India had abstained on the amendments to the resolution, not because it had any quarrels with their intent, but because they were not relevant to the objective of the resolution. She would vote in favour of the resolution.
The representative of Pakistan said that the ABM Treaty was the bedrock of maintaining strategic stability. Preservation and compliance was vital for international security and for promoting nuclear disarmament. Although the nuclear Powers said that disarmament was a bilateral issue, the framework for such disarmament was now in danger because of those States’ own actions. Statements by the Russian Federation had made it clear that deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system in the United States could derail the Second Strategic Arms Limitation and Reduction Treaty (START II) process and delay START III. Those were not bilateral matters. His country would, therefore, vote in favour of the resolution, although it appealed to the Russian Federation to also display the same sensitivity to security concerns of his country, and reconsider the matter of their resupplying their neighbour.
The representative of Kenya said that the ABM Treaty was not the only arms control treaty threatened by current developments. The Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was under even greater siege. The nuclear States had already disregarded article VI of the Treaty by their reluctance to undertake disarmament in good faith. All arms control treaties should be treated equally. It was imperative to involve the international community right from the beginning, to provide a better guarantee for survival of such treaties. Therefore, his Government would vote for the resolution.
The representative of Nigeria said that to achieve disarmament agreements, bilateral, multilateral and unilateral efforts were needed. The ABM Treaty was the result of determined bilateral efforts. The repeated assertion that the responsibility for nuclear disarmament lay with the United States and the Russian Federation -- those two countries with largest supply of nuclear weapons -- rested on the assumption that there was a high degree of cooperation between those States. Any lack of cooperation could have a negative effect on other disarmament treaties. The ABM Treaty had been amended before, in a spirit of cooperation, and the United States and the Russian Federation should resume an ongoing dialogue in such a spirit. It was in that hope that Nigeria would abstain in the voting.
The representative of Brazil said that he continued to believe that the ABM Treaty was a cornerstone of nuclear stability, but since some provisions of current draft were not in line with the current practice and law of treaties, Brazil would abstain.
The representative of the Ukraine said that while the United States and the Russian Federation had reaffirmed their commitment to the ABM Treaty this year -- the Cologne Statement -- the United States’ decision to continue with plans for development of an ABM system was cause for concern. Every State had the right to solve issues of national security, taking into account existing or potential threats. However, those issues could not be solved at the expense of international commitments. The Standing Consultative Council was the proper multilateral forum for all discussion of amendments to the ABM Treaty. He supported the main thrust of the French amendments, but the need for further analysis would make his delegation abstain on the vote.
The draft resolution on the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1) was approved by a vote of 54 in favour to 4 against (United States, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia, Latvia), with 73 abstentions (Annex III).
The representative of Canada, speaking in explanation of vote on the draft, said his abstention should in no way be interpreted to mean any change in his Government’s appreciation of the fundamental importance of the ABM Treaty to international security. Last week, in Boston, his Foreign Minister had underlined the importance of the Treaty to international strategic stability, and had also cautioned that, in efforts to reconcile national missile defence with the Treaty, great care should be taken not to damage the system that had underpinned nuclear restraint and allowed for nuclear reductions.
He said that while the global community had an official stake in the outcome of bilateral talks, that process between the parties involved should be given more time. He questioned whether bringing the issue to light in this way, at this time, had been the best way to move matters forward. His country had remained deeply concerned about the broad issue of the proliferation of missiles, especially those carrying weapons of mass destruction. Thus, he voted in favour of the amendments.
The representative of Venezuela said he shared the concerns expressed in the text. In the current circumstances, he was confident that the parties to the ABM Treaty would be able to resolve the discrepancies without jeopardizing the Treaty. The international community must remain watchful of the evolution of the process. Likewise, his country had favourably viewed the scope of the amendments by France, and had felt that the broader issue of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems could be dealt with in a timely and appropriate way. Thus, he had abstained in the vote on the text.
The representative of Cuba said the international community had been making considerable efforts to adopt instruments preventing or curbing the creation and development of certain weapons and their delivery systems, such as nuclear weapons, which had threatened international security. It was really lamentable that a country that had assumed commitments under a Treaty of historic importance had been carrying out actions that had undermined or sidestepped the letter and spirit of that legal instrument. He would vote in favour of the draft, as it had emphasized the need to strictly respect the ABM Treaty.
He said that any violation of the ABM Treaty, as indicated by the co-sponsors of the draft, would negatively influence not only the States parties, but the entire international community. That, in turn, would have negative consequences for peace, security, strategic balance and nuclear disarmament. The discussion in the framework of the General Assembly had been completely relevant. He hoped that during the next session, the present disturbing situation concerning the ABM Treaty would have evolved in such a way as to make it unnecessary to adopt a resolution on the subject.
The representative of Peru said he wished to emphasize the traditional position of his country in favour of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, as well as its support for the validity of the ABM Treaty. That position had inspired his vote on the draft.
The representative of the Philippines said he had continued to support the sanctity of the ABM Treaty for reasons already stated. Certain points, however, as had made it difficult to support the draft. In East Asia, where the potential for conflict had existed and where the nuclear factor had hovered, potential conflicts could emerge in many geographic areas, all of them straddling the Philippines. Thus, he had to reserve his position on the text, and had not participated in the vote.
On the other hand, he said that many in the Philippines had still felt that all effort must be exerted to preserve the ABM Treaty, but the text might not be “the way to go”. He had witnessed, a few weeks ago, how the United States had proceeded with important policy decisions. The United States Congress and the influence of the military contractors would swing the debate on the ABM Treaty in their favour. Any effort to persuade them otherwise would be futile. He would, therefore, reserve participation now, but would participate in the next vote on the subject next year.
The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said the position of most interested parties deserved full and careful consideration. Taking into account the cornerstone importance of the ABM Treaty, his delegation had abstained in the vote on the amendments and on the draft itself.
The representative of Ecuador said he was in favour of the need for the General Assembly to deal with all disarmament and international stability and arms control issues, on which measures needed to be taken. The subjects dealt with in the draft resolution on the ABM Treaty and the amendments had been relevant and should, therefore, be given the priority attention of the international community. Nonetheless, it was premature to deal with the matter, which had been reflected in his vote.
The representative of Argentina said he had attached great importance to the ABM Treaty and to other agreements between the nuclear-weapon States. He had been concerned at the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament by those countries, as reflected in the lack of ratification of START II and the absence of progress on START III. There had also been a need to strengthen existing treaties. Thus, he would reiterate the appeal he had made directly to the countries involved that they should redouble efforts to strengthen existing agreements and advance new ones. Nonetheless, his delegation had abstained in the vote, because it was not convinced that the draft would create a climate conducive to reaching agreement on such areas.
The representative of Latvia said that, although he had opposed the draft, he wished to emphasize his support of all efforts made to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. But, initially, a continued bilateral dialogue between the Russian Federation and the United States was the best and most practical way to facilitate attainment of ballistic missile control. “Taking the initiative out of the hands of the initiators” might damage the Treaty. He supported debate among all of the nuclear-weapon States on the control of their destructive weaponry, as it had sought improved global security.
The representative of Germany spoke on behalf of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. He said those countries had decided to abstain in the vote on the draft. The manner in which the matter had been raised in the Committee did not have the support of both parties to the Treaty.
He said the countries named above had underlined the need for consensus from the very early stages of discussion, and had been involved in efforts to reach such a consensus. Regrettably, it had not been possible for the parties to the Treaty to reach an agreement on the issue. He had attached great importance to the ABM Treaty, which had contributed to the broad disarmament and arms control process. Both the Russian Federation and the United States had reaffirmed, in their statements, their commitment to the ABM Treaty and their continued efforts to strengthen it in order to enhance and strengthen its future viability.
He said he had urged the parties to continue cooperation on that basis and had underlined the importance of further progress in both bilateral and multilateral efforts. The parties had also been urged to continue the bilateral process, including the early entry into force of START II and an early commencement of START III negotiations. Since the NPT had provided the global framework for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, he had called on all States parties to the NPT to strive for a successful Review Conference and had underlined the importance of continued and intensified efforts to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force, in particular, by the 44 States whose ratification was required.
He said a political climate beneficial for further progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation would be affected by such factors as preservation of the ABM regime, continuation of the START process, and further progress with regards to the CTBT. He was strongly committed to the cause of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems and had fully supported the substance of the French amendments. Regrettably, he had felt obliged to abstain, as it would have not been appropriate to support amendments without being in a position to support the amended resolution.
The representative of Sweden said he had associated himself with the explanation of vote made by the representative of Germany, on behalf of several European countries. The ABM Treaty had been a cornerstone of strategic stability and an important component of global stability. Its continued integrity, therefore, was of global concern, and also closely linked to the broader disarmament and non-proliferation agenda. He had followed, with close attention and concern, the developments surrounding the Treaty, and would call on the States parties to restrain from deploying anti-ballistic missile defence systems, which could negatively affect nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and create uncertainties.
He said the States parties should demonstrate a commitment to the ABM Treaty by continuing cooperation in a constructive spirit. Regrettably, those parties had been unable to submit a consensus draft. In the absence of such consensus, it had been inappropriate to interfere. He had, therefore, decided to abstain in the vote on the draft, as well as in the amendments proposed by France. He would underline the importance of continued efforts towards the early entry into force of other arms control treaties, a solid ABM regime, the continuation of the START process, and further strengthening of the CTBT, as those were all vital ingredients in promoting a climate for global non- proliferation and disarmament.
The representative of Nepal explained his country’s vote on the draft resolution on the ABM treaty. He said he supported the text because the Treaty had heralded the era of détente in arms control, and any effort to undermine the continued relevancy of the Treaty would spark a new round of the arms race.
The representative of France said that because of the unprecedented circumstances created by one State party of the ABM Treaty, it deemed it a matter of priority to evolve a draft text that would be compatible with the concerns of all States. There were two basic needs for the text: first, to preserve the Treaty, the cornerstone of strategic stability since 1972; second, to combat the proliferation of ballistic missiles. Since those two basic elements now appeared in the text, France had been able to vote in favour of it.
The representative of New Zealand said he had abstained on the vote because he had difficulty with aspects of it. But the ABM Treaty was fundamental to international stability, as made clear in the draft resolution on the new agenda, and he urged all parties to strengthen and maintain it.
The representative of Japan reiterated the importance of the ABM Treaty, but abstained in the vote. Was it constructive to take the matter to the General Assembly while bilateral efforts were being made by countries directly involved? Still, he respected the right of any Member State to express its views in a resolution of the Assembly.
The representative of Egypt said he had voted in favour of the resolution, but abstained from the amendments, not because he did not fully support their concerns, but because they were not linked closely enough to the issue. He affirmed his support for all those concerned with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The representative of the United States said that he attached great importance to nuclear disarmament, and that bilateral negotiations had made significant progress in reducing the nuclear stockpiles of both nations. The United States would continue to work towards reducing those stocks further. That was the most substantial action the United States could make towards fulfilling its obligation towards arms control.
Arms control, however, he added, did not occur in a vacuum. There were always new developments -- in technology, in political climate, in the nature of security threats. The ABM Treaty was a cornerstone, but as circumstances changed, it might become necessary to change the Treaty to reflect those new realities. Those changes needed to be made by negotiations. The ABM Treaty had provisions for amendments and had already been amended.
Prudent adaptation was important to maintaining strategic stability, he said. Obsolete treaties that could not reflect current reality only created the illusion of stability. It was reckless and irresponsible to ignore the emergence of new threats, and the new technologies that could protect against them. He rejected the idea that a 27-year old treaty could not be amended to maintain stability and security.
Vote on Amendments to Resolution on ABM Treaty
The amendments to the draft resolution on preservation and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems -- The Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty -- (document A/C.4/54/L.56) was approved by a recorded vote of 22 in favour to 1 against, with 95 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Guyana, Haiti, Ireland, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine.
Against: United States.
Abstain: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte D' Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Namibia, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
(END OF ANNEX II)
Vote on Preservation of ABM Treaty
The draft resolution on the preservation and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems -– the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 54 in favour to 4 against, with 73 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Latvia, United States.
Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote D’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Papau New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
* *** *