VZCZCXRO7710
RR RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUCNDT #1070/01 3290039
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 250039Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7698
INFO RUCNDSC/DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE COLLECTIVE

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