UN General Assembly 1st Committee Voting Records on NPT-related agenda

Nuclear disarmament

The general tendency in the nuclear disarmament pillar is, as mentioned before, the following: non-nuclear-weapon states introduce draft resolutions with an appeal to nuclear weapon states (NWS) to pursue negotiations towards nuclear disarmament. NWS mostly vote against such resolutions or at least abstain. Their main argument is that the current security situation does not allow to forgo nuclear deterrence. Moreover, as the Russian delegation repeatedly states, NPT’s ultimate goal is general and complete disarmament while all current disarmament initiatives focus on nuclear disarmament only, which basically goes in disagreement with the core document on the nonproliferation regime.

 The major event in the GA1 was the adoption of the resolution 76/54 Joint courses of action and future-oriented dialogue towards a world without nuclear weapons or Japan resolution. It was traditionally introduced to the GA1 by Tokyo. The resolution contains measures to facilitate negotiations on nuclear disarmament. The nuclear P5 did not reach a consensus on the adoption of the draft resolution. The USA and the UK are co-sponsors. While last year France abstained from voting, this year it voted in favor. Russia and China traditionally voted “against”. Japan’s anti-nuclear resolution focuses only on nuclear disarmament. For his part, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly stated: “We assume that the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is possible only in the context of general and complete disarmament under conditions of equal and indivisible security for all, including nuclear weapons possessors, as stipulated by the NPT”.

However, there are points all NWS agree upon – (1) they are not ready to pursue nuclear disarmament seriously at this very moment; (2) they stick to the NPT Article VI that has no deadline for disarmament negotiations and strives for general and complete disarmament instead of just nuclear disarmament; (3) they reiterate that disarmament measures are the subject to separate agreements among NWS – not the subject to decide by non-nuclear-weapon states. Thus, they convergently vote against any paragraph of any resolution mentioning the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), as well as any ultimate demands to them to destroy their nuclear arsenals. They even voted against the resolution 76/31 Follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to at the 1995, 2000 and 2010 Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons submitted by Iran. By that P5 states stress that, although the resolution clearly refers to past commitments made by the Nuclear Five towards nuclear disarmament, they will still not agree with the TPNW entry into force. That is why there is little chance of TPNW to be normally recognized by NWS and their close allies at the upcoming NPT Review Conference.

Another noteworthy point is that there is an unexpected point of agreement between Russia and the United States on nuclear disarmament. US and Russia continuously react negatively to paragraphs welcoming the Secretary-General’s disarmament agenda – Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament – and emphasizing the importance of its implementation (resolutions 76/45, 76/49, 76/53). They vote against retaining the paragraphs containing the mentioned document. It might be related to regular statements that current security architecture is not ready for nuclear disarmament. That is why Russia and the USA are currently having consultations on security guarantees and strategic stability dialogue – to ensure their own security before continuing negotiations about nuclear disarmament.

Disarmament radicals 

Another side of the coin are disarmament radicals, who, logically, have almost opposite behavior to the nuclear weapon states. Looking at voting records, it is noticeable that whenever all P5 vote against any resolution about nuclear disarmament, there are no states from disarmament radicals or from Non-Alignment Movement in the same list. Moreover, P5 tend to vote against resolutions submitted by abovementioned coalitions (except from the resolutions adopted by acclamation (76/37, 76/38, 76/39)). Mostly, it is because such resolutions mention TPNW in most cases. Also, nuclear-weapon states appeared to be sensitive to mentioning their nuclear doctrines as well as past commitments under the NPT.

The humanitarian initiative is another quite active movement in the nonproliferation field. By looking at the GA1 voting records, it becomes clear that humanitarian initiative is quite widely supported. The resolution 76/30 on Humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons had 90 sponsors that is almost a record number for the Committee, but NWS either voted against or abstained. However, the Japan resolution also contains some points about communication with hibakusha, which is a part of humanitarian initiative. The main conclusion that is possible here is that NWS are more likely to support some ideas related to disarmament if they are introduced by their allies as it happened with the Japan resolution or if they do not imply clear demand for action.

WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East

Similar to what happens at any discussion related to the creation of WMDFZ in the Middle East, the resolution 77/20 Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East had only one vote against – by Israel. In the explanation of the vote, Israel expressed its position about the issue: “Even though Israel had its own deep reservations on the language and modalities of this resolution, which have been voiced every year in our “Explanation of Position”, Israel supported this resolution for the sake of consensus, as Israel’s consistent approach was always constructive and consensus-oriented. It is very unfortunate that this long-standing practice was broken by the Arab group. By imposing a new unilateral and destructive resolution in 2018 entitled “Convening a Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction”, the Arab group has altered the status quo and forced Israel to disassociate itself with the subject resolution”.  

Iran voted for the resolution but expressed its desire to change its contents in the explanation of vote: “Once again, we reiterate our urge to the sponsor of the resolution to delete PP9 and OP 4 regarding peace negotiations in the Middle East since no such peace negotiations exist. All we see in the Middle East is relentless Israeli aggression, brutal occupation, and reject the demand of the international community to participate in the Conference on establishing a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction with the backing of the US”. The positions of the two states clearly depict the positions of states about the ME WMDFZ, though the position of Arab states became a little softer after the second session of Conference on the Establishment of a ME WMDFZ as they are trying to involve Israel in negotiations by any possible means.

Other issues of nuclear nonproliferation

There are painful issues for states that have been there for a lot of time and which they reiterated during the GA1 session. One of those is entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Noteworthy, the resolution was adopted by GA1 without a vote; the only state that voted against was the DPRK (during GA Plenary). The question is why there are still states that voted for the resolution but still have to ratify it, like the USA, for example?

Peaceful uses of outer space are also becoming more and more urgent. The idea of peaceful space is generally supported by states. However, as usual, Russia and China promoted their draft treaty on no first placement of weapons in outer space, but other P5 states voted against the resolution mentioning it; moreover, the resolution was supported by 124 states, which is rather few for GA voting.

Peaceful uses of nuclear technologies, nuclear safety and security are the agenda that is widely supported by states as well. The resolution on preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material was the most sponsored one (93 sponsors). 

Conclusion 

After analyzing GA1 voting records, the following tendencies were formulated:

• Only resolutions reiterating existing treaties and formats are adopted without a vote. Almost each resolution, even the ones adopted by acclamation, has some paragraphs that triggered disagreement among Member States and required voting on amendments.
• There are three most active state groups that are the same proactive at NPT Review process: P5 states, Non-Alignment Movement (Indonesia, Egypt), and Disarmament radicals (Austria). Also, NATO states without a failure support any resolution sponsored by the USA.
• In most cases, P5 are divided in two blocks: Russia and China vs. USA, UK, France. Whenever an initiative is introduced or supported by one ‘block’, it is most certainly not supported by the other. The only cases P5 agree on are when resolutions are adopted without a vote or they agree in their opposition towards disarmament-oriented documents, especially those referring to TPNW a lot.
• Points of convergence among major actors: physical nuclear security; safety and security of fissionable material. Points of disagreement: nuclear disarmament issues, regional nonproliferation and disarmament.
• The situation around WMDFZ in the Middle East is the same as at other formats: regional parties maintain convergence in their wish to proceed with the negotiations, but Israel refuses to join negotiations.
• The General Assembly did not adopt any principally new measures, the main purpose of states’ participation in it was to show their national position and test the soil before the NPT RevCon.

From the results of the GA1 work, it becomes clear that the disarmament pillar is going to cause the most disagreement at the upcoming RevCon, especially the relations between NPT and TPNW. The main feature of the RevCon is consensus-based decision-making, that is why NNWS, particularly disarmament radicals, won’t have an opportunity to push through their agenda by numeric advance as they did at the GA.

Table 1. GA1 Voting Records, 2021.