DYB2011-Part-II-web

United Nations Disarmament Yearbook 2011: Part II
282
Egypt did not acknowledge the right of one or more States to enforce compliance
by another State that was party to a treaty or an agreement. Operative paragraph
7 referred to “concerted action”, however, it was not clear which means were
foreseen within the interpretation of “concerted action”. The draft resolution
missed the aspect of underscoring the urgency of achieving the universality of
multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation agreements.
• The Syrian Arab Republic stressed that it was not possible to vote on a draft
text that called for adherence to the NPT when Israel, which was one of the main
sponsors of the draft resolution, possessed nuclear weapons and did not accede
to the NPT. It asserted that compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation
and disarmament commitments required that the sponsors of the draft resolution
themselves comply with the international agreements, particularly the NPT. The
draft resolution lacked balance as it failed to mention the role of the IAEA and
the CD.
• Ecuador believed that the draft resolution did not go far enough in urging the
adoption of agreed bilateral or multilateral measures, which could result in broad
interpretations for actions, including unilateral action.
• Belarus expressed its support for non-proliferation, arms limitation and
disarmament agreements. It abstained from voting on the draft resolution
because it doubted the readiness of the initiators of the document to set out clear
provisions in the draft text.
• Pakistan stated that it subscribed to the core objectives of the draft resolution.
However, the concepts and practices of compliance, verification and enforcement
must be anchored strictly in legality. Some of the major disarmament initiatives
have suffered setbacks precisely because of lack of compliance and enforcement
mechanisms. It wished for a more consultative approach on producing the draft
text.
66/51. Nuclear disarmament
In adopting this annual resolution, the
Introduced by: Myanmar (27 Oct.)
General Assembly welcomed the ongoing efforts
between the States members of the Association of GA vote: 117-45-18; 162-0-14, o.p. 14;
Southeast Asian Nations and the nuclear-weapon 172-1-7, o.p. 16 (2 Dec.)
States. It also encouraged the nuclear-weapon 1st Cttee vote: 113-44-18; 157-0-14,
States in their early signing of the Protocol o.p. 14; 164-1-6, o.p. 16 (27 Oct.)
to the Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-
For text, sponsors and voting pattern, see
Weapon-Free Zone. It also called for the conclusion
Yearbook, Part I, pp. 136-145.
of an international legal instrument or instruments
on adequate and unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States.
First Committee. Pakistan, which intended to abstain in the vote, explained its
position before the vote, saying that it had consistently supported the goals of nuclear
disarmament as well as the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It noted, however,
that the draft resolution contained unnecessary references to the full implementation
of the action plan set out in the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
In line with its well-known position on the NPT, it would abstain on paragraph 14. It