DYB2011-Part-II-web

United Nations Disarmament Yearbook 2011: Part II
286
• Canada maintained that the draft resolution unfairly singled out Israel, while
failing to address serious non-compliance issues by other States in the region
already party to the NPT. Canada had taken that position in other forums and
had consistently called for universal adherence to the NPT. Canada found the
draft resolution to be deficient because it ignored other realities, such as the
non-cooperation with the IAEA by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian
Arab Republic.
After voting in favour, five States delivered statements:
• Switzerland noted that the draft resolution promoted the universalization of the
NPT in the region of the Middle East, to which it fully subscribed. It welcomed
the concrete measures with respect to the creation of a zone free of nuclear
and all other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, in particular the
decision to hold a conference on this subject in 2012. It attached importance
to the full and complete implementation of the obligations of all States under
the NPT. In order to implement the draft resolution and to achieve the goal of
preventing the risk of nuclear proliferation in the broadest possible scale, it
was imperative that States be fully cognizant of the present context and of all
developments that affected the countries of the region taken as a whole.
• New Zealand said that it believed in the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world,
and was a strong and long-standing supporter of universalization of the NPT. It
was committed to the realization of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and strongly supported the
convening in 2012 of a conference on the establishment of such a zone. Noting
that the IAEA would have a crucial role to play in verifying such a zone, it urged
all States that have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement an additional
protocol to allow the Agency to undertake its important work. It was concerned,
however, regarding the absence in the draft resolution of any reference to
other States in the Middle East that presented significant nuclear proliferation
concerns and hoped that this lack of balance would be addressed in future years.
• The Islamic Republic of Iran found it ironic that countries such as Canada,
members of the EU or the United States had ignored the unsafeguarded nuclear
installations of Israel, while making baseless allegations against the Islamic
Republic of Iran’s exclusively peaceful and safeguarded nuclear programme.
• Pakistan supported the primary focus of the draft resolution, but was
disappointed at the continued call on Pakistan to join the NPT. It therefore went
along with the draft text as a whole while abstaining in the voting on its fifth,
sixth and seventh preambular paragraphs.
• The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stressed that the nuclear policy
of Israel was a major obstacle to progress towards the establishment of a
nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and had been a major source of
proliferation in the region.
Two States that had abstained in the vote spoke:
• Australia stated that it supported the practical steps endorsed by the 2010
NPT Review Conference towards the convening of a conference in 2012
on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and
their delivery systems. It was Australia’s long-held view that all States in the