SUMMARY OF UNGA FIRST COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS:

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 USUN NEW YORK 001070 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: CD CDG KN PARM PREL UNGA SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF UNGA FIRST COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS: INCREASED U.S. ENGAGEMENT PAYS OFF REF: USUN 1056 ¶1. (U) Summary: During the October 5 - November 2 session of the UNGA First Committee (Disarmament and International Security),the U.S. policy of active engagement on multilateral disarmament and nonproliferation issues paid off. The United States sought to build on the vision President Obama articulated in his April speech in Prague, engage resolution sponsors with a view to finding as much common ground as possible, and reduce the number of instances in which we voted "no" in isolation. This approach was largely successful, as indicated by the tally below of actions taken on First Committee resolutions. The number of "no" votes by the United States was reduced from 23 last year to 10, and in no case did the United States vote "no" in isolation. Many delegations applauded the United States for its willingness to be flexible, and engage constructively. They welcomed that fact that the United States was again participating actively in multilateral disarmament forums. ¶2. Noteworthy among the 54 resolutions the First Committee considered was Japan's resolution on complete elimination of nuclear weapons, on which the United States went from a "no" vote last year to co-sponsorship this year. ASEAN states warmly welcomed the U.S. shift from "no" to an abstention on their resolution on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty. Satisfactory but hard-fought results were reached on resolutions on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). In both cases Pakistan sought, by watering down these resolutions, to walk back from agreement reached on the program of work (POW) for the 2009 session of the CD, which called for FMCT negotiations in the CD. The resolution on a conventional Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was among the most contentious, but in the end the United States agreed to support it in return for UK agreement that that ATT negotiations would be conducted by consensus. ¶3. Resolutions are listed by their Secretariat draft, or "L number." Final action on resolutions is usually taken in the UNGA plenary about a month after the First Committee concludes. Where a recorded vote was taken, the votes are listed in order as yes-no-abstain. In some cases an explanation of vote (EOV) was made. Texts of EOVs will be posted on the U.S. Mission Geneva web site. Most of the resolutions (33) were adopted without a vote (i.e., by consensus). Further analysis of the trends in this year's First Committee is provided septel. End summary. Resolutions -------------- L.1 - Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT). Sponsor: Canada. Adopted by consensus. For the first time since 2005, Canada introduced a resolution supporting negotiation of an FMCT in the CD. Pakistan, supported by Iran, offered numerous and repetitive amendments to weaken the precedent established by the 2009 CD Program of Work (contained in document CD/1864). Over nearly two months of open-ended and bilateral consultations, a draft text acceptable to all was finalized, and the resolution (as orally amended) was adopted on October 29. As adopted, the resolution will support the resumption of FMCT negotiations in the CD, but does not significantly prioritize FMCT negotiations over substantive treatment of the CD's other four core issues (nuclear disarmament, Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, and negative security assurances). L.2 - Verification in all its aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification. Sponsor: Canada. Adopted by consensus. Canada introduced a "placeholder" decision on verification, which puts the issue on the agenda of the 2011 UNFC. It was adopted without contention. L.3 - Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Sponsor: Egypt. Operative paragraph 3: 166 (U.S.) - 0 - 3. Resolution as a whole: consensus. This resolution has usually passed by consensus with little controversy, as Israel has concluded not objecting to this resolution was a way of demonstrating its good will on this issue, even if it did not believe such a zone was a near-term possibility. This year, however, the Israelis decided to take tougher position in response to developments at the IAEA General Conference (GC) in September. After long discussions within the Israeli government in Jerusalem and with the United States in Washington, Israel decided to call for a vote on operative paragraph 3, which refers to the IAEA GC resolution on Safeguards in the Middle East. Israel (along with the Cote d'Ivoire and India) abstained on that paragraph, then joined the consensus on the resolution as a USUN NEW Y 00001070 002 OF 007 whole. L.4 - The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Sponsor: Egypt. Preambular paragraph 6: 163 - 4 (U.S.) - 6. Resolution as a whole: 164 - 5 (U.S.) - 6. As in the past, the U.S. opposed this resolution because it singled out Israel as the sole source of the risk of proliferation in the Middle East, while completely neglecting such more serious concerns as Iran and Syria. The EU and others supported the resolution but expressed strong regrets that it did not mention Iran. L.5 - Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them. Sponsor: Mali for ECOWAS. Adopted by consensus. L.6 - Follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences of the Parties to the NPT. Sponsor: Iran. Preambular paragraph 6: 109 - 49(U.S.) - 10. Resolution as a whole: 105 - 56 (U.S.) - 12. This resolution gets little attention from year to year and attracts so much opposition because it is proposed by Iran. The U.S. again voted "no" on the resolution as a whole and on preambular paragraph 6, which calls for universal adherence to the NPT. L.7 -- Review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security. Sponsor: Indonesia for the NAM. Adopted by consensus. This year, Indonesia presented a non-substantive decision to include this item on the agenda of the sixty-sixth session of the UNGA. L.8 - Implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace. Sponsor: Indonesia on behalf of the NAM. 128-3(U.S.)-44. Indonesia introduced this traditional and unchanged resolution. The P3 continued to vote no, without explanation, supported by a large number of abstentions. L.9 - Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (SSOD IV). Sponsor: Indonesia for the NAM. Adopted by consensus. As last year, this was a brief non-substantive decision that put the item on the agenda for the next year. L.10 - Relationship between disarmament and development. Sponsor: Indonesia on behalf of the NAM. Adopted by consensus. Indonesia introduced this traditional and unchanged resolution. The U.S. did not participate in action on the resolution. The P-3 delivered separate but complementary EOVs, with the USG noting briefly that it disagreed with the resolution's central premise that there was a generic connection between disarmament and development. L.11 - United Nations regional centers for peace and disarmament. Sponsor: Indonesia for the NAM. Adopted by consensus. There were no substantive changes to this long-standing resolution. L.12 - Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control. Sponsor: Indonesia for the NAM. Adopted by consensus. The United States has consistently opposed this resolution as an unnecessary burden on the process of negotiating arms control agreements. In recent years we have shifted from a "no" vote to allowing consensus but not participating in action on the resolution. This year we joined consensus but made an explanation of vote on behalf of the P-3 pointing out that France, the United States and the United Kingdom operate under strict domestic environmental regulations, including for implementation of arms control agreements. The U.S. said that the P-3 saw no direct connection, as stated in the resolution, between general environmental standards and multilateral arms control. L.13 - Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and nonproliferation. Sponsor: Indonesia for the NAM. 126-5(U.S.)-49. This resolution continued to tout multilateralism as "the core principle" in negotiations on disarmament and nonproliferation. The United States again voted "no" and was joined by the UK, Israel, Palau, and Micronesia. L.14 - International day against nuclear tests. Sponsor: Kazakhstan. Adopted by consensus. This first-year resolution proposed by Kazakhstan began as "International day for a world free of nuclear weapons" in honor of August 29, 1991, the date Kazakhstan's nuclear test range closed. The resolution ran into stiff opposition right from the start. The Japanese feared domestic fallout from a date in August other than the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and August 29 happened to be the anniversary of Russia's first USUN NEW Y 00001070 003 OF 007 nuclear test under the former USSR. The EU was divided, with few strong supporters in the West. The Kazakhs were reluctant to make changes since this was a personal initiative of President Nazarbayev. Shortly before voting, Kazakhstan issued a revision that changed the title and focus of the resolution to "International day against nuclear tests." By the time of the vote the Kazakhs thought they had consensus. However, after the Kazakh head of delegation offered an oral revision to expand "nuclear tests" to include "explosions," India suggested new wording for operative paragraph 1. Egypt protested the Indian edit, with both parties finally agreeing to add "as one of the means of achieving the goal of a nuclear free world." The resolution then passed by consensus. (Note: There was no French reaction to the inclusion of "a goal of a nuclear free world", despite consistent GOF neuralgia about the phrase throughout the First Committee process. End note.) L.15 - Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction. Sponsor: Hungary. Adopted by consensus. Hungary continues to sponsor this resolution, and there were no substantive changes from last year's version. It passed by consensus. L.16 - Convention on cluster munitions. Sponsor: Ireland. Adopted by consensus. This non-substantive resolution welcomed the offer of Laos to host the first meeting of states parties to the convention and asked the Secretary-General to undertake preparations, as called for in the Convention, to convene the conference following the Convention's entry into force. L.17 - Preventing the acquisition by terrorists of radioactive materials and sources. Sponsor: France. France introduced a "placeholder" decision which puts the issue on the agenda of the 2011 UNFC. It was adopted without contention. L.18 - Reducing nuclear danger. Sponsor: India. 113 - 50(U.S.) - 15. This Indian-sponsored resolution continues to cross a number of U.S. redlines. There were few changes to this year's resolution, and we were among many voting against it. L.19 - Measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Sponsor: India. Adopted by consensus. No substantive changes from last year. We continued to join consensus and co-sponsor this Indian resolution. L.20 - Convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. Sponsor: India. 116 - 50 (U.S.) - 11. Another Indian-sponsored resolution that we are unable to support. There were few changes to this year's version and we were among many voting against it. L.21 - Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament. Sponsor: India. Adopted by consensus. The Indians told us they keep this as a placeholder decision that puts the subject on the UNGA agenda, but that with the passage of time they are less inclined to pursue it as a resolution. L.22 - United Nations center for peace, disarmament and development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Sponsor: Peru on behalf of GRULAC. Adopted by consensus. There were no substantive changes to this resolution. L.23 - Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (Bangkok Treaty). Sponsor: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN. 172-0-5(U.S.). In accordance with its instructions, USDEL opened a dialogue with the sponsors of this resolution in an attempt to find common ground that might justify a change in the U.S. vote on this resolution. The sponsors made clear that they recognized that the United States and other P-5 states (except China) continued to have problems with the Bangkok Treaty. However, they said that they would be highly pleased if the United States could treat this resolution as a separate issue from the Treaty itself and shift to an abstention from its previous "no" note. USDEL proposed changes to the resolution, mainly intended to correct the impression that consultations regarding the Bangkok Treaty were ongoing when in fact they were not. ASEAN accepted the changes and the United States abstained. The Thai representative repeatedly expressed her gratitude for the U.S. vote. L.24 - Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Sponsor: Pakistan. 119-0-58(U.S.). The sponsor made no significant changes to this resolution, about which the United States has had serious reservations USUN NEW Y 00001070 004 OF 007 for many years. In accordance with its instructions to seek to avoid unnecessarily voting "no" in isolation, the United States shifted back to its approach of several years ago of joining the large number of abstentions and making a strong EOV. In its EOV, USDEL pointed out that the United States continued to believe that the resolution, among other things, did not accurately reflect the situation in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) on nuclear security assurances (NSAs). Nevertheless, the United States had supported the approval of the CD's 2009 program of work (POW) in document CD/1864. This document called for discussion in the CD of all aspects of NSAs, including the possibility of an international legally binding agreement. Since the United States remained committed to engage fully in all aspects of the CD's POW, but could not support the draft resolution as written, we decided to abstain. L.25 - Prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS). Sponsor: Sri Lanka. 176-0-2(U.S.). In accordance with its instructions to seek to avoid unnecessary isolation in a "no" vote, USDEL resumed the U.S. practice of abstaining on this resolution to encourage the sponsors to resist pressure to add more objectionable features to it, such as endorsement of a new outer space treaty. L.26 - National legislation on the transfer of arms, military equipment and dual-use goods and technology. Sponsor: The Netherlands. Adopted by consensus. The United States continued to support this resolution, which was substantively unchanged. L.27 - Regional confidence-building measures: activities of the United Nations standing advisory committee on security questions in Central Africa. Sponsor: Angola. Adopted by consensus. This year, new language in the resolution welcomed the adoption of a declaration calling on States members of the Standing Advisory Committee to contribute to a Special Trust Fund for the Committee. L.28 - Regional disarmament. Sponsor: Pakistan. Adopted by consensus. There were no substantive changes to the resolution. L.29 - Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels. Sponsor: Pakistan. 173(U.S.)-1-2. There were no substantive changes to the resolution from previous years. L.30 - Confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context. Sponsor: Pakistan. Adopted by consensus. There were no substantive changes to the resolution. L.31 - Nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas. Sponsor: Brazil. Operative paragraph 7: 165-2-6 (U.S.). Resolution as a whole: 168-3(U.S.)-5. The P-3 again raised issues about this long-standing resolution with its authors, Brazil and New Zealand. The sponsors made no significant changes in the text, and the P3 continued to oppose this resolution because of the implication that it would extend nuclear-weapon-free zones to the high seas, thereby interfering with the freedom of navigation. The U.S. again joined with the P-3 in a common EOV. L.32 - United Nations regional center for peace and disarmament in Africa. Sponsor: Nigeria. Adopted by consensus. This resolution remained substantively the same. L.33 - African nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty. Sponsor: Nigeria. Adopted by consensus. This resolution remained the same except for the addition of language welcoming the entry into force of the Treaty of Pelindaba. L.34 - Prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes. Sponsor: Nigeria. Adopted by consensus. There were no substantive changes to the resolution, which has been submitted several times before. L.35 - Convention on the prohibition of development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. Sponsor: Poland. Adopted by consensus. This resolution was substantially the same as last year's, with only technical updates. L.36 - Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Sponsor: Japan. 161(U.S.)-2-8. The United States has voted against this resolution in recent years, but has made clear that of all the major UNGA resolutions on nuclear disarmament this one comes closest to reflecting U.S. views. The United States opened a dialogue with Japan on this resolution before the First Committee session began with a view to seeking agreement on language USUN NEW Y 00001070 005 OF 007 that would allow the United States to move away from its "no" vote in recent years. Contacts continued during the session, with discussion focusing primarily on how to reflect the principle of irreversibility in further steps leading to nuclear disarmament. Japan agreed to changes that permitted the United States not only to support but to co-sponsor the resolution. USDEL understands that this was front page news in Japan. In a move unusual for the First Committee, Japanese news media sought out the U.S. head of delegation on the plenary floor for a few (courteous) questions as the meeting in which this resolution was adopted adjourned. L.37 - 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. Sponsor: Sweden. Adopted by consensus. This resolution was substantially the same as previous versions but with technical updates. L.38 - The Arms Trade Treaty. Sponsor: The UK. 153(U.S.) - 1(Zimbabwe) - 19. The ATT resolution was among the most contentious this year. After extensive high-level consultations, the U.S. agreed to support the resolution (and the negotiation of an ATT) in return for the UK's agreement to add to the resolution the statement that the negotiations would be conducted by consensus. In response to the insistence by Germany and some others, the British then agreed to add some further modifying language, while retaining "consensus." The resolution passed overwhelmingly, but the abstentions of some key countries (many but not all Arab states, India, Pakistan, Russia, and China),which argued that agreeing to a negotiation already was too rapid movement, and may portend difficulties for the negotiations. L.39 - Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security. Sponsor: Russia. Adopted by consensus. The United States continues to have reservations about this resolution, believing that cyber security issues should be handled in other forums than the First Committee. In the past, however, the United States has been able on occasion to work with the sponsor on resolution language and on participation in a UN group of governmental experts (GGE) on this issue. This resolution calls for another GGE, which the United States believes is unnecessary and unlikely to be successful, but the United States nevertheless has decided to participate in it. In a meeting before this resolution was acted on, a U.S. coordinator for cyber policy informed the Russian delegate that the United States would allow this resolution to be adopted by consensus. She asked that Russia support the U.S. initiative to re-introduce a resolution on cyber security in the Second Committee, which the United States believed was a more appropriate forum for this subject. The Russian representative welcomed the news about the First Committee resolution and said that his delegation had recommended to Moscow that Russia support the U.S. Second Committee resolution. L.40 - Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities. Sponsor: Russia. Adopted by consensus. The United States has engaged with Russia on various aspects of space policy, but with an ongoing space policy review we were not in a position to support this resolution. At the Russian representative's suggestion, the United States announced that it would not participate in action on this resolution (thus allowing it to be adopted by consensus). In its EOV the United States noted its consultations with Russia and the EU on space activities, criticized continued Chinese stonewalling concerning their ASAT test, pointed out the ongoing U.S. review, said that it looked forward to discussing insights from its review at the UNGA the following year, and that it looked forward to engaging in substantive discussions on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) as part of the 2010 work program of the Conference on Disarmament. L.41 - Report of the Conference on Disarmament. Sponsor: Austria. Adopted by consensus. Introduced by Austria with co-sponsorship from the other P6 (CD Presidents in 2009),the resolution calls for the early adoption of the CD's Program of Work in 2010, with a focus on resuming negotiations on an FMCT. As with the FMCT resolution, Pakistan, supported by Iran and joined occasionally by India, offered numerous and repetitive amendments to weaken the precedent established by the 2009 CD Program of Work (contained in document CD/1864). After nearly two months of open-ended and bilateral consultations, a draft text acceptable to all was finalized, and the resolution (L.41/Rev.1) was adopted on October 30. L.42 - The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SA/LW) in all its aspects. Sponsor: Japan. Operative paragraph 4: 177(U.S.) - 0 - 1. Operative paragraph 15: USUN NEW Y 00001070 006 OF 007 177(U.S.) - 0 - 1. Resolution as a whole: 179(U.S.) - 0 - 0. After being the lone dissenter last year, the U.S. was able to persuade the lead sponsors (South Africa, Japan, Colombia) to accept two U.S. edits and convince the many co-sponsors to go along with the changes. The U.S. voted in favor of the resolution and co-sponsored it. Although the sponsors had hoped for consensus, Iran called for a paragraph vote on operative paragraphs 4 and 15. Mexico, which was unhappy that the sponsors did not accept its own edits to the resolution, provided a statement before the vote saying the sponsors should have "respected the perspective of all delegations." The sponsors were exceedingly pleased with the new U.S. approach on SA/LW. L.43 - Objective information on military matters. Sponsor: Germany. Adopted by consensus. This resolution was substantively the same as last year. L.44 - Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus. Sponsor: Germany. Adopted by consensus. This resolution only had minor updates from last year. L.45 - United Nations center for peace and disarmament in Asia and the Pacific. Sponsor: Nepal. Adopted by consensus. This resolution was substantially the same as previous versions. L.46 - Conference of states parties and signatories to treaties by which nuclear-weapon-free zones have been established. Sponsor: Chile. Amendment to preambular paragraph 4: 4-103(U.S.)-22. Resolution as a whole: 159-0-6(U.S.). This resolution sought to organize the second conference of states parties to nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs) with UN support. A provision calling for support from the UN regular budget was deleted, and a one-day conference in April 2010 with UN interpretation and documentation support will be paid for with contributions from states parties. Syria submitted an amendment to preambular paragraph 4 that deleted language calling for a NWFZ in the Middle East freely arrived at among states of the region an in accordance with principles adopted by the UN Disarmament Commission. It was soundly defeated. The United States abstained on the resolution as a whole (joined by the UK, Russian, Israel, France, and Syria) because the resolution referred to agreements like the Central Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, which the United States opposes. A joint US/UK/France EOV was delivered by the UK. L.47 - Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Sponsor: Australia. 175(U.S.) - 1(DPRK) - 3(India, Mauritius, Syria). Because of the change in U.S. policy on the CTBT, the United States co-sponsored this resolution, which it had voted against since 2001. In order to gain widespread support, the Australian sponsors, after long and difficult consultations with China, watered down significantly any reference to the North Korean nuclear test. In the end all P-5 states co-sponsored, reportedly a first. L.48 - Nuclear Disarmament. Sponsor: Myanmar for the NAM. 112-43(U.S.)-21. The Myanmar/NAM nuclear disarmament resolution went with little attention and a vote similar to previous years'. L.49 - Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region. Sponsor: Algeria. Adopted by consensus. This traditional resolution has remained essentially unchanged since 1990. L.50 - Transparency in Armaments (TIA). Sponsor: The Netherlands. Operative paragraph 3: 147(U.S.)-0-24. Operative paragraph 4: 147(U.S.)-0-24. Operative paragraph 5: 149(U.S.)-0 22. Operative paragraph 6(d): 147(U.S.)-0-23. Operative paragraph 6: 148(U.S.)-0-22. Operative paragraph 8: 146(U.S.)-0-23. Resolution as a whole: 150(U.S.)-0-22. The U.S. co-sponsored the traditional TIA resolution, which discusses activities connected to the UN Register on Conventional Arms. As in previous years, the Arab states called for paragraph votes on many of the operational paragraphs to make the point that the register should include WMD as well as conventional weapons. L.51 - Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Sponsor: The NAM. 125-30(U.S.)-22. This resolution continued to support an ICJ opinion that the United States for years has opposed as inappropriate. L.52 - Report of the Disarmament Commission. Sponsor: Poland. Adopted by consensus. The United States announced that it would not participate in action on this resolution. After it was adopted, a representative of Poland (which USUN NEW Y 00001070 007 OF 007 provides the chair for the current UNDC session) asked why the United States had done so. According to him, Poland had invested heavily in trying to improve the atmosphere of the UNDC and it had had some success; the Polish delegation seemed caught off guard. USDEL pointed out that the United States has declined to participate in action on UNDC resolutions for several years. As much as the atmosphere had improved the chances of agreement in the UNDC's three-year study cycle seemed as bleak as ever. L.53 - Implementation of the convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel mines and on their destruction. Sponsor: Jordan, Norway, Switzerland. 158-0-18(U.S.). In accordance with current policy that the United States will engage in active landmine remediation activity but will remain aloof from the Ottawa Convention, USDEL continued to abstain. L.54 - Towards a nuclear-weapon free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments. Sponsor: South Africa for New Agenda Coalition (NAC). Operative paragraph 4: 159-4(U.S.)-2. Resolution as a whole: 165-5(U.S.)-4. The U.S. consulted with the NAC co-sponsors (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden) in an effort to seek changes that would permit the U.S. to move from a "no" vote to an abstention or positive vote. Our key concerns were the NPT universalization paragraph, the need to "soften" the reference to the NPT "practical steps" from the 2000 NPT Review Conference, addition of a reference to FMCT negotiations, and strengthening the need for compliance. We provided the co-sponsors with language along those lines, but they could not agree to any of the U.S. proposals, thus the U.S. subsequently voted "no". RICE