DYB2011-Part-II-web

United Nations Disarmament Yearbook 2011: Part II
274
nuclear disarmament commitments contained in the Conference’s action plan
were fully implemented.
• The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea pointed out that paragraph 10,
which mentioned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Six-Party
Talks, conveyed contradictory messages: “denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula”, not the denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, was a correct expression of the reality. It also disagreed with the singling
out of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the draft resolution.
Two of the States that voted against the draft resolution explained their positions:
• India reaffirmed its commitment to the goal of the complete elimination of
nuclear weapons. However, India could not accept the call to accede to the NPT
as a non-nuclear-weapon State, emphasizing that, as enshrined in the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State’s acceptance, ratification or accession
to a treaty should be based on the principle of free consent. India stressed that
nuclear weapons were an integral part of its national security and would remain
so pending global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament.
• The United States, speaking also on behalf of France and the United Kingdom,
noted that the draft resolution did not accurately reflect the commitments
contained in the action plan of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, did not show
an equitable balance among the three pillars of the NPT, did not adequately
address compliance with the Treaty’s non-proliferation obligations and, in
particular, neglected to mention the challenge to the NPT regime posed by the
Islamic Republic of Iran’s failure to comply with its international obligations.
They were also concerned that it omitted any reference to the negotiation of an
FMCT in the CD.
Two abstaining States took the floor:
• Pakistan agreed that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation
were mutually reinforcing, however, it was disappointed at the selective and
discriminatory language of paragraph 9 that called upon Pakistan to accede
unconditionally to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State, and, in accordance
with its clear position on the NPT, it could neither accept nor endorse the
decisions, recommendations and resolutions emanating from the NPT Review
Conferences.
• China supported the purposes and objectives contained in the draft resolution,
however, it noted with regret that certain elements were inconsistent with the
contents of the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. China’s
view was that, as the Final Document had been adopted by consensus that was
difficult to attain, it should not be changed or interpreted in an arbitrary or more
generalized manner, and the consensus attained should not be misinterpreted.