http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001102/wl/un_disarmament_1.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A coalition of countries pressing for total nuclear disarmament has won votes from the United States and NATO (news - web sites) countries for a resolution seeking to cut nuclear arsenals, a top U.N. official said Thursday.

The resolution of the New Agenda Coalition was adopted with 146 votes in favor at Wednesday's close of the annual session of the U.N. disarmament committee. Last year, it only received 90 ``yes´´ votes.

Undersecretary-General for Disarmament, Jayantha Dhanapala, attributed the ``significant´´ increase in this year´s vote to the outcome of a U.N. conference in May reviewing progress on implementing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

That conference ended with a pledge by the five main nuclear powers - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - to make an ``unequivocal´´ undertaking to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

``I think the fact that there was a consensus in the NPT helped the (New Agenda Coalition) countries to garner more support for their resolution this year,´´ Dhanapala said, citing the positive votes by the United States, Britain and China and several NATO members.

Russia and France were among the eight countries that abstained from the vote, which now goes to the full General Assembly.

India and Pakistan, which conducted rival nuclear tests in 1998, and Israel, which is believed to have nuclear weapons capability, voted against the resolution. None joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The resolution of the New Agenda group, which includes South Africa, Brazil, Ireland, Egypt, New Zealand, Mexico and Sweden, was one of 49 adopted by the committee in its deliberations.

One resolution sponsored by Japan and Australia took the agreements reached at the May conference further by setting a date - 2005 - for the conclusion of negotiations for a treaty banning the production of fissile material, the key building block of nuclear weapons.

The United States, Israel and Micronesia voted against a resolution cosponsored by Russia, China and Belarus calling for the United States to refrain from deploying a national missile defense system.

The resolution welcomed President Clinton (news - web sites)'s decision to put off deployment, which would require changes to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, considered the cornerstone of arms control agreements.

The New Agenda resolution was overwhelmingly adopted on 1 November by a vote of 146 to three with eight abstentions: an obvious and unequivocal endorsement. All of NATO (except France) voted yes. The US, UK and China are in the "yes" column; Russia and France abstained.

The three "no" votes are from the non-NPT NWSs - India, Israel and Pakistan.

The eight abstainers are: Bhutan, France, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Monaco, Russia, Uzbekistan. Most are countries closely tied to Russia, France or India.

This overwhelming vote serves the dual goals of bringing the NPT consensus onto the broader international stage and solidifying the New Agenda's role in nuclear disarmament deliberations. In short, this is the new agenda.

Several delegations, including the US and UK, said they were judging First Committee resolutions this year by the light of the 2000 NPT Review Conference Final Document. In explaining their votes, the US said the NPT Document "is our guiding light for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts" and the UK said First Committee drafts "should faithfully reflect the letter and spirit" of the NPT agreement.

Amb. Robert Grey of the US said the draft "recognizes that nuclear disarmament is a process that requires pragmatic proposals in a step-like process, not political calls for impossible goals. We view the resolution in this context, including the rather unclear and ambiguous operative paragraph 18, which should not be construed as in any way limiting the ways and means available to pursue our shared goals."

Paragraph 18 is the one that calls for "the underpinnings of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument or a framework encompassing a mutually reinforcing set of instruments."

Amb. Ian Souter of the UK said, "We considered it particularly important that resolutions emerging from this committee should faithfully reflect the letter and spirit [of the NPT Conference]... With that in mind, we are pleased to have been able to vote in favor of this resolution. As we made clear in May, the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the global elimination of nuclear weapons. We welcome the fact that the 2000 NPT Review Conference endorsed the package of measures that are reflected in this resolution - many of which the United Kingdom has undertaken nationally."

In explaining their abstentions, China said the draft should have been "more explicit" on issues including preserving the ABM Treaty, no-first- use, and the lead role that should be taken by the major nuclear powers in disarmament; France said the text "does not fully satisfy the need for fidelity" to the NPT consensus.

There were two separate votes on paragraphs. PP 15, welcoming the Final Document of the NPT Conference, passed 151 to three (India, Israel, Pakistan), with one abstention (Cuba). OP 16, also on the NPT, passed 151 to zero with four abstentions (Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan).

OTHER DRAFTS

The Japanese/Australian draft on "A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons" (L.39/Rev. 1) was adopted 144 to one (India) with 12 abstentions (including China, France, Russia and Pakistan). The abstainers complained had multiple complaints, largely stemming either from the way the draft interprets the NPT Final Document or that it does not go far enough: the draft "departs markedly from the [NPT] consensus" (France); it "selectively cites provisions from the Final Document which violate the fragile balance of interests" in the Document (Russia); the text "have certain inadequacies" such as the failure to reject deterrence (China); and it places "inordinate emphasis on non-proliferation and not on nuclear disarmament" (Pakistan).

The ABM resolution (L.2/Rev. 1) was adopted 78 to three (US, Israel and Micronesia), with 65 abstentions. Abstainers pretty much split the difference on the issue: yes, we think the ABM Treaty should be preserved (in other words, we don't like BMD), but no, it's not the business of non-states parties to tell states parties what to do with their treaty. Since the US allies could easily have joined the US in voting no, we can look at this vote as a ringing lack of endorsement for the US missile defense plans.

The US has always opposed this resolution. Amb. Grey said the draft has "basic flaws" and that it "remains based on the premise that preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty is incompatible with amending it." He added, "Questions about the ABM Treaty are for the Treaty parties to resolve. That process will only be hindered by having the General Assembly take sides."

Germany, speaking on behalf of 30 abstaining countries (NATO plus), said such an issue "should have the support of the parties to the Treaty... We have underlined the need for consensus on this resolution. We regret that it was not possible for the parties to reach an agreement, and we encourage them to continue their discussions on the issue. We attach great importance to> the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability, contributing to the broader disarmament and arms control process."

Sweden gave an interesting addendum to this debate. Originally it had signed up on the German statement, but withdrew in favor of a separate statement. While aligning itself with that group of states, Sweden said it "does not share the overriding preoccupation with 'strategic stability' expressed in the resolution. The concept of strategic stability is closely linked with cold war doctrines which... should in Sweden's view not be the sole basis for disarmament and non-proliferation in the post-cold war era." This was the only time in the five weeks of the First Committee that any state challenged this new catchphrase.

The resolution on the Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty talks (L.49/ Rev. 1) was adopted by consensus. The revised text dropped the idea of completing negotiations within five years, thus aligning the draft with the language of the CD consensus.

Go to www.reachingcriticalwill.org for the revised texts, voting charts, other resolutions and full texts of some of the explanation of votes.