DYB2011-Part-II-web

66/44. Treaty banning the production of fissile material
for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices
By this annual resolution, the General
Assembly resolved to consider options for the
negotiation of a treaty banning the production
of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices at its sixty-seventh
session should the CD fail to agree on and
implement a comprehensive programme of work
by the end of its 2012 session. It encouraged
interested Member States to continue efforts,
Disarmament resolutions and decisions listed by chapter
Introduced by: Canada (18 Oct.)
GA vote: 158-2-21; 157-2-17, o.p. 2;
160-2-16, o.p. 3 (2 Dec.)
1st Cttee vote: 151-2-23; 149-3-16, o.p.
2; 148-2-19, o.p. 3 (28 Oct.)
For text, sponsors and voting pattern, see
Yearbook, Part I, pp. 99-103.
including within and on the margins of the CD, in support of the commencement
of negotiations, including through meetings involving scientific experts on various
technical aspects of the treaty, drawing on available expertise from the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other relevant bodies, as appropriate.
First Committee. In a general statement, Tuvalu said that it had intended to
become a sponsor of the draft resolution.
Explaining their positions before the vote, two States took the floor:
• Pakistan, which intended to vote against the draft, pointed out the draft
resolution’s flaws: retaining the reference to consider options for FMCT
negotiations, ostensibly outside the CD; and keeping its non-proliferationcentric
focus. It disagreed on a ban on future production of fissile materials
without reduction of existing stocks. Pakistan asserted that the stalemate in
the CD was not due to the FMCT alone, and noted that it would be appropriate
to acknowledge the reasons for the decades of CD deadlock on nuclear
disarmament, negative security assurances and the prevention of an arms race in
outer space.
• Argentina stated that it would vote in favour of the draft. It agreed with the
spirit of the draft resolution that attempted to contribute to revitalizing the work
of the CD through the adoption and implementation of a programme of work
leading to the start of substantive negotiations. Argentina stressed the role of
the CD as the sole multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament. However, it
disagreed with the establishment of a priori options for future courses of action
to be considered by the General Assembly should the CD fail to agree on and
implement its programme of work by the end of its 2012 session.
After voting in favour, the following five States, explained their positions:
• South Africa noted that, although it supported the commencement of
negotiations on an FMCT, such a treaty was not the only item that was ripe
for negotiations in the CD. It viewed the convening of a special session of the
General Assembly devoted to disarmament as an important and viable option
where disarmament issues could be discussed in a comprehensive manner. South
Africa emphasized that its support for the draft resolution was without prejudice
to the priority it attached to nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances
and other priority issues such as the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
275