Approving 8 Drafts on Conventional Arms, First Committee Urges States to Help Reduce Human Suffering by Upholding Treaty Commitments
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) today approved eight draft texts, including ones calling for the universalization of the Arms Trade Treaty and the implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
The Committee approved the draft resolution “The Arms Trade Treaty” (document A/C.1/73/L.8/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to none against, with 30 abstentions, asking the General Assembly to call upon all States that have not yet done so to ratify, accept, approve or accede to the instrument, in order to achieve its universalization.
Also by the text, the Assembly would stress the vital importance of the full and effective implementation of and compliance with all provisions of the Treaty by States parties, and urge the States parties to meet their obligations, thereby contributing to international and regional peace, security and stability; to the reduction of human suffering; and to the promotion of cooperation, transparency and responsible action.
Yet, prior to approving “L.8/Rev.1” as a whole, the Committee held separate recorded votes on some paragraphs. Many delegations expressed reservations to some of the draft’s language, reflecting differing views on the scope of its provisions.
Indeed, the Committee decided to retain operative paragraph 4, which would have the Assembly call upon all States that have not yet done so to ratify, accept, approve or accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to none against, with 35 delegations casting abstentions. Many explained their delegations’ positions, citing the instrument’s shortcomings.
Egypt’s representative said the Arms Trade Treaty could allow exporting States to abuse the instrument’s provisions. Meanwhile, Cuba’s delegate said the instrument was approved with a premature vote, lacked consensus, contains ambiguities, inconsistencies and legal vacuums, while being unbalanced and favouring arms‑exporting States.
By a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 35 abstentions, the Committee approved the retention of operative paragraph 9. By its provisions, the Assembly would recognize the added value of the adoption in June of the report of the third United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, including the annexed outcome document, and acknowledge synergies between this instrument and the Arms Trade Treaty.
However, the representatives of Israel and the United States said their delegations opposed the inclusion of ammunition‑related language in the outcome of the third Review Conference because the issue of ammunition is outside the scope of the Programme of Action on Small Arms.
Taking up other drafts on conventional weapons, the Committee took action on several relating to multilateral treaties and conventions.
By a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 1 against (Zimbabwe), with 39 abstentions, the Committee approved the draft resolution “Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions” (document A/C.1/73/L.39), by which the Assembly would urge all States outside this instrument to join as soon as possible, whether by ratifying or acceding to it, and all States parties that are in a position to do so to promote adherence to its provisions through bilateral, subregional and multilateral contacts, outreach and other means.
Many delegations abstained on the draft, with Brazil’s representative saying his country did not participate in the Oslo process on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a parallel measure that contains several loopholes. Poland’s delegate explained that while supporting the humanitarian goals of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, these aims must be balanced with States’ military and defence needs. Pakistan’s delegate said the most appropriate multilateral venue to address the issue of cluster munitions is the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.
Approved without a vote were the following draft resolutions: “Information on confidence‑building measures in the field of conventional arms” (document A/C.1/73/L.29); “Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them” (document A/C.1/73/L.32); “Countering the threat posed by improvised explosive devices” (document A/C.1/73/L.60); and “Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects” (document A/C.1/73/L.67).
Approved by a recorded vote were the following draft resolutions: “Preventing and combating illicit brokering activities” (document A/C.1/73/L.55) and “The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects” (document A/C.1/73/L.63).
Speaking in explanation of position were the representatives of Australia, Japan, Iran, Armenia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Switzerland, Argentina, Singapore, India, Republic of Korea, United Republic of Tanzania, Cyprus, France, Syria, Belgium and the United Kingdom.
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representatives of China, Russian Federation and the United States.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m., Thursday, 8 November, to take action on the remaining draft resolutions and decisions.
Background
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to take action on all draft resolutions and decisions before it. For background, see Press Release GA/DIS/3597 of 8 October.
Action on Draft Texts
The representative of Australia, explaining his delegation’s position, said his country did not support the draft resolution “No first placement of weapons in outer space” (document A/C.1/73/L.51) because the language is counterproductive. There is no way to verify the purpose of dual‑use technology deployed in outer space, she said, citing as an example a Russian satellite. The best approach is to reinforce trust and transparency measures. As a party to all five outer space treaties, Australia will make good faith efforts.
The representative of Japan said his delegation voted in favour of the draft resolutions “Prevention of an arms race in outer space” (document A/C.1/73/L.3) and “Transparency and confidence‑building measures in outer space” (document A/C.1/73/L.68./Rev.1), as it supports confidence‑building and transparency measures. Japan abstained on “L.51”, as this failed to address the transparency issue, and abstained on the draft decision “Further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space” (document A/C.1/73/L.50). However, Japan welcomes discussions in the subsidiary body 3 of the Conference on Disarmament.
The representative of the United States said that although her delegation voted against the draft resolutions on outer space, it supports confidence‑building measures in that realm. The United States will continue to pursue bilateral and multilateral confidence‑building measures to promote the peaceful use of outer space. Expressing support for the 2013 Group of Governmental Experts report on transparency and confidence‑building measures, she called on all States to review and implement, where possible, the measures contained in the report. Nevertheless, voluntary guidelines and transparency and confidence‑building measures should not be tied to legally binding instruments. It is unacceptable when measures are linked to fundamentally flawed disarmament proposals. The United States would prefer space to remain free of conflict but, as the United States Vice President Mike Pence said, China and the Russian Federation have been aggressively developing and deploying technologies that are transforming space into a war‑fighting domain.
The representative of Iran said that his delegation’s position remains, as it did in 2017, valid on “L.51” and “L.68/Rev.1”.
The Committee then turned to its cluster on conventional weapons, hearing delegates’ general statements and the introduction of draft resolutions and decisions.
The representative of Sri Lanka, introducing the draft resolution “Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions” (document A/C.1/73/L.39), said the instrument is an important step towards the elimination of such weapons, as their humanitarian impact greatly outweighs any military or other perceived benefits. “L.39”, co‑sponsored by 42 Member States, includes a few technical updates, mentions the tenth anniversary of the Convention and refers to finances and gender, he said, calling on all delegates to support it.
The representative of Mali introduced the draft resolution “Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them” (document A/C.1/71/L.32), by which the Assembly would commend the United Nations and international, regional and other organizations for their related assistance to States.
The representative of Latvia introduced the draft resolution “The Arms Trade Treaty” (document A/C.1/71/L.8/Rev.1), by which the Assembly would call upon all States that have not yet done so to ratify, accept, approve or accede to the instrument, according to their respective constitutional processes, in order to achieve its universalization. The Arms Trade Treaty has been ratified by 99 countries, and ratification is expected to reach 100 very soon. The high number of co‑sponsors of “L.8/Rev.1” reflects their commitment to the Treaty.
The representative of Egypt, explaining his country’s position before the vote, said his delegation will abstain on “L.8/Rev.1” because of shortcomings of the Arms Trade Treaty, such as elements that may allow exporting States to abuse these provisions. Egypt will also abstain on “L.39”.
The representative of Israel referred to “L.8/Rev.1” and the draft resolution “The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects” (document A/C.1/71/L.63), saying that his delegation did not consider the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects the right venue to address ammunition, since another venue was decided in the Group of Governmental Experts. In this vein, Israel cannot accept any provisions that welcome the outcome documents of the third Review Conference of the Programme of Action on Small Arms.
The representative of Armenia, referring to “L.8/Rev.1”, said that for the Arms Trade Treaty to be an effective and viable instrument, it should have been adopted by consensus. Armenia has issues with the preambular paragraphs of the Treaty referring to the self‑determination of peoples. Moreover, his Government is concerned that the Treaty could lead to political speculation and hinder access to relevant technologies. Thus, his delegation will abstain on “L.8/Rev.1” while dissociating itself from all provisions mentioning the Treaty.
The representative of Iran said his delegation will abstain on “L.8/Rev.1”. While it supports preventing the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons, the Treaty places the commercial interests of arms‑producing countries above the implementation of international law. In particular, operative paragraph 4 calls for the universalization of the Treaty despite the fact that it was not adopted by consensus. Furthermore, violations are taking place by States parties to the Treaty, he said, citing the export of billions of dollars of arms to Israel. Regarding operative paragraph 9, Iran cannot acknowledge synergies between the Treaty and the Programme of Action on Small Arms.
The representative of Cuba said that, as in previous years, her delegation will abstain on “L.8/Rev.1”, as a whole, as the Arms Trade Treaty was approved with a premature vote and lacks consensus. It is characterized by ambiguities, inconsistencies and legal vacuums, which hinder its efficacy. It is unbalanced, favouring arms‑exporting States. Moreover, its parameters to assess the approval of arms transfers are subjective and can easily be manipulated for political purposes. Cuba will also cast an abstention on operative paragraph 9, as it rejects the establishment of artificial synergies between the Treaty and the Programme of Action on Small Arms. On the draft resolution “Preventing and combating illicit brokering activities” (document A/C.1/73/L.55), Cuba supports initiatives to prevent and combat such activities and believes “L.55” can contribute positively to these efforts. Nevertheless, in the future, the draft resolution should include weapons of mass destruction and other sophisticated weapons. It should also remove references to the Arms Trade Treaty, which is not supported by all States.
The representative of Venezuela said his delegation will abstain on “L.8/Rev.1”, including operative paragraph 9, as his country is not a party to the Arms Trade Treaty, an instrument that is subject to political manipulation.
The Committee then took up the draft resolution “The Arms Trade Treaty” (document A/C.1/73/L.8/Rev.1), by which the Assembly would call upon all States that have not yet done so to ratify, accept, approve or accede to the Treaty, according to their respective constitutional processes, in order to achieve its universalization.
Prior to taking action on the draft as a whole, the Committee held separate recorded votes on preambular paragraph 8 and operative paragraphs 4 and 9.
By a recorded vote of 153 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions, the Committee approved the retention of preambular paragraph 8, by which the Assembly would take note of the Secretary‑General’s disarmament agenda, “Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament”, in particular the section “Disarmament that saves lives”.
By a recorded vote of 138 in favour to none against, with 35 abstentions, the Committee approved the retention of operative paragraph 4, by which the Assembly would call upon all States that have not yet done so to ratify, accept, approve or accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, according to their respective constitutional processes, in order to achieve its universalization.
By a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 35 abstentions, the Committee approved the retention of operative paragraph 9, which would have the Assembly recognize the added value of the adoption in June of the report of the third United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action on Small Arms, including the annexed outcome document, and acknowledge synergies between this instrument and the Arms Trade Treaty.
The Committee then approved “L.8/Rev.1”, as a whole, by a recorded vote of 151 in favour to none against, with 30 abstentions.
The Committee had before it the draft resolution “Information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms” (document A/C.1/73/L.29), which would have the Assembly welcome all such measures already undertaken by Member States and encourage them to continue to adopt and apply such measures.
The Committee then approved the draft text without a vote.
The Committee then took action on the draft resolution “Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them” (document A/C.1/73/L.32), by which the Assembly would commend the United Nations and international, regional and other organizations for their related assistance to States. Also by the text, the 193‑member body would encourage the international community to support the implementation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons, Their Ammunition and Other Related Materials.
The Committee then approved the draft text without a vote.
The Committee then took up the draft resolution “Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions” (document A/C.1/71/L.39), by which the Assembly would urge all States outside this instrument to join as soon as possible, whether by ratifying or acceding to it, and all States parties that are in a position to do so to promote adherence to its provisions through bilateral, subregional and multilateral contacts, outreach and other means.
Prior to taking action on the draft text as a whole, the Committee held a separate recorded vote on preambular paragraph 14.
By a recorded vote of 152 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions, the Committee decided to retain preambular paragraph 14, which would have the Assembly take note of the initiative of the Secretary‑General’s new disarmament agenda, in particular the section “Disarmament that saves lives”.
The Committee then approved “L.39”, as a whole, by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 1 against (Zimbabwe), with 39 abstentions.
The Committee then took up the draft resolution “Preventing and combating illicit brokering activities” (document A/C.1/73/L.55), by which the Assembly would call upon Member States to establish appropriate national laws and/or measures to prevent and combat the illicit brokering of conventional arms and materials, equipment and technology that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
Prior to taking action on the draft resolution as a whole, the Committee held a separate recorded vote on preambular paragraph 9, which would have the Assembly recognize the importance of States parties to the Arms Trade Treaty taking measures, pursuant to their national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under their jurisdiction, in accordance with article 10 of the Treaty.
The Committee then approved the retention of this provision, by a recorded vote of 149 in favour to none against, with 20 abstentions.
Taking up the draft as a whole, the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to 1 against (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), with 2 abstentions (Egypt, Iran).
It then considered the draft resolution “Countering the threat posed by improvised explosive devices” (document A/C.1/73/L.60), by which the Assembly would strongly encourage States to develop and adopt their own national policy to counter these weapons, including civilian‑military cooperation, to strengthen their countermeasure capability, to prevent their territory from being used for terrorist purposes and to combat illegal armed groups, terrorists and other unauthorized recipients in their use of such weapons.
Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the draft text.
The Committee took action on the draft resolution “The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects” (document A/C.1/73/L.63), by which the Assembly would decide to convene several meetings to examine the issue, including the fourth Review Conference on the Programme of Action on Small Arms in 2024 and a one‑week biennial meeting of States in 2020 to consider key challenges and opportunities relating to the implementation of the Programme of Action on Small Arms and the International Tracing Instrument at the national, regional and global levels.
Prior to taking action on the draft text as a whole, the Committee held separate recorded votes on preambular paragraph 7 and operative paragraph 6.
By a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), the Committee approved the retention of preambular paragraph 7, which would have the Assembly welcome the successful conclusion of the third United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action on Small Arms held in New York from 18 to 29 June 2018.
By a recorded vote of 174 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 1 abstention (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), the Committee approved the retention of operative paragraph 6, which would have the Assembly endorse the outcome of the third Review Conference.
Acting without a vote, the Committee then approved the draft text as a whole.
The Committee then turned to the draft resolution “Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects” (document A/C.1/73/L.67), by which the Assembly would call upon all States that have not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and its protocols. Also by the text, the Assembly would note that conferences may be convened to examine amendments to the instrument or to any of the protocols.
The Committee then approved the draft text without a vote.
The representative of Indonesia, explaining his delegation’s position following the vote, said his country abstained on “L.55”, on preambular paragraph 9 and as a whole, and on “L.8/Rev.1”.
The representative of Switzerland said his delegation joined consensus on “L.60” but has grave concerns about the designation of actors who use improvised explosive devises.
The representative of Egypt said his delegation continued to join consensus on “L.60”, but has reservations about preambular paragraph 15, which undermines the value of the draft resolution.
The representative of Argentina said it abstained on “L.39”, noting that his country does not possess cluster munitions and advocates for their full prohibition. While Argentina has not subscribed to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, it has participated actively in various processes. However, the language in the Convention adopted was not ambitious enough, particularly articles 11 and 21. Nevertheless, Argentina does assist as an observer at all meetings of the States parties to the Convention.
The representative of Singapore said it voted in favour of “L.39” and supports related initiatives. Singapore declared a moratorium on the export of cluster munitions and supports the work of the Convention by regularly attending States parties meetings. As the right of self‑defence cannot be disregarded, a blanket ban on all such weapons might run counter to that principle.
The representative of Brazil, referring to “L.8/Rev.1”, said that his country is a long‑term supporter of the Arms Trade Treaty and one of its newest States parties. Nevertheless, it abstained on operative paragraph 4 because of its reference to “synergies” between the Treaty and the Programme of Action on Small Arms, he said, noting that his delegation had suggested that that word be replaced with “complementarities” and anticipated this proposal will be considered in the future. Meanwhile, Brazil abstained on “L.39” as it did not participate in the Oslo process on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a parallel process that contains several loopholes. Also, the effectiveness of the Convention is undermined by article 21.
The representative of Poland, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, said his delegation had abstained on “L.39”. While supporting the humanitarian goals of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, he said these aims must be balanced with States’ military and defence needs.
The representative of India, referring to “L.8/Rev.1”, said her delegation abstained. While India supports the objectives of the Arms Trade Treaty, the instrument remains under review from a military and defence perspective. However, India voted in favour of “L.55”, as it supports the objectives the draft resolution seeks to promote. However, her delegation abstained on preambular paragraph 9, which contained a reference to the Arms Trade Treaty, to which India is not a party.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said his delegation abstained on “L.39” because his country faces a unique security situation and is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania asked for a correction of voting results, noting that his delegation voted in favour of preambular paragraph 8 of “L.8/Rev.1”.
The representative of Pakistan said his delegation abstained on “L.39” as it is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is the most appropriate multilateral instrument to address the issue of cluster munitions. His delegation joined consensus on “L.60” but share concerns about the use of improvised explosive devices by armed or unauthorized actors. The amended protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is the most appropriate tool to consider the issue of these weapons.
The representative of Cyprus said his delegation abstained on “L.39.” While Cyprus signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2011, the ratification process is still ongoing due to the security situation on the island. The delegation hopes to vote in favour in the future.
The representative of the United States, commenting on “L.63” and “L.8/Rev.1”, said her delegation opposes the inclusion of ammunition‑related language in the outcome of the third Review Conference because the issue of ammunition is outside the scope of the Programme of Action on Small Arms. Her delegation also abstained on “L.39” on implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
The representative of Iran said his delegation abstained on “L.39”, as the Convention on Cluster Munitions was negotiated outside the United Nations and his country did not participate in the negotiations. As for “L.60”, his delegation joined the consensus, but has some concerns about the use of improvised explosive devices by terrorists or armed groups.
The representative of France highlighted that “L.63” was adopted as a whole by consensus, despite calls for a vote on two separate paragraphs. Noting that France chaired the third Review Conference of the Programme of Action on Small Arms, he said multilateralism binds all Member States, with compromise permitting progress. The resulting outcome document reflects the positions of all States, thus there is no sense in voting against paragraphs that make reference to it.
The representative of Cuba said the scope of “L.60” should be limited to the use of improvised explosive devices by terrorists and other non‑authorized actors. Cuba has reservations about preambular paragraph 15 and is concerned about restrictions on transfers of dual‑use components, without acknowledging the right of States to possess them for trade purposes. Her Government is also concerned about the proliferation of initiatives proposed in a number of operative paragraphs, included without the approval of all Member States. Such initiatives should be addressed within the purview of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
The representative of Syria, addressing “L.63”, said his Government supports the Programme of Action on Small Arms and the International Tracing Instrument, however, the third Review Conference outcome document refers to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in too broad a manner. In addition, the outcome document excludes arms trafficking to terrorist groups by some States. Despite that, Syria voted in favour of “L.63”, as his delegation supports a need to shield people against the hostilities of war. Despite reservations about the outcome document, Syria will implement it in line with its national capacities. His delegation abstained on “L.8/Rev.1”, as the Arms Trade Treaty protects the interests of some arms‑producing countries at the expense of the concerns of others, he said, adding that Syria disassociates itself from any provision referring to this instrument.
The Committee then turned to its cluster on other disarmament measures, hearing general statements.
The representative of Belgium said his delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution “Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium” (document A/C.1/73/L.12). Belgium passed a 2007 national law regarding depleted uranium, the first in the world, after seeking input from the scientific community and continues to be interested in the effects of armaments and weapons using depleted uranium.
The representative of the United Kingdom, also speaking on behalf of France and the United States on the draft resolution “Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament” (document A/C.1/73/L.65/Rev.1), highlighted a need to regulate the transfer of peaceful technology to prevent their misuse by non‑State actors. States must exercise their rights while respecting their obligations. Speaking on behalf of his country and France on the draft resolution “Relationship between disarmament and development” (document A/C.1/73/L.11), he said the notion of a symbiotic link between these fields remains questionable and the draft does not accurately capture the complex nature of this relationship. Defence investments are needed to secure the peace needed for development. Turning to the draft resolution “Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control” (document A/C.1/73/L.13), he said the United Kingdom and France are committed to the fight against climate change and the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The representative of Israel, commenting on the draft resolution “Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures” (document A/C.1/73/L.35) and its preambular paragraph 9, said the Programme of Action on Small Arms is not the right venue for addressing the issue of ammunition. As such, his delegation does not accept the outcome document of the third Review Conference because it includes language related to ammunition.
Right of Reply
The representative of China, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, denied unfounded accusations levelled by the United States against his country. China is not turning outer space into a “war‑fighting domain”, but has sought to prevent its weaponization. All of China’s outer space activities are for peaceful purposes. It is the United States that is weaponizing outer space, with President Donald Trump saying he wants an “American space force”. Indeed, President Trump wants not only the United States to have a military presence in outer space, but to cement its dominance in this sphere. The issue of verification is not a matter of feasibility, but one of cost effectiveness. Verification is viable if enough resources are invested.
The representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation fully shares the view of his Chinese counterpart, denying unproven accusations levelled by the United States about the Russian Federation’s use of outer space. For many years, the Russian Federation has been calling on the United States not to place weapons in outer space and to never use force against space objects. The United States and its Western partners refuse to support the international community’s efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space. “This is the reality of the modern world,” he said.
The representative of the United States highlighted the aggressive activities of China in space, including their testing of anti‑satellite ballistic material that resulted in the creation of significant amounts of space debris. The draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space is nothing more than a “hiding tool” for China and the Russian Federation to continue their aggressive space activities while everyone else abides by international obligations. It is a smokescreen that seeks a legitimate cover for their illegitimate activities. As her Administration has previously noted, the United States will defend itself whether by land, sea, air or in space.
The representative of the Russian Federation said the United States repeatedly claims its commitment to international obligations, but in 2001, Washington, D.C., withdrew from the Anti‑Ballistic Missile Treaty [Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti‑Ballistic Missile Systems]. This withdrawal damaged the whole system of international security, paving the way for an unrestrained weapons race. The United States has since carried out preparations to place their strike missiles and have been blocking consideration for two decades of any proposals to prevent an arms race in outer space. Washington, D.C., has even taken on the role of pressuring Europe in that regard. The United States now wants to point the finger at the Russian Federation and China, but will not manage to deceive the international community. Meanwhile, the United States has blatantly violated other treaties, he said, noting that Washington, D.C., is blocking work on a verification protocol to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction.
The representative of China said his country’s anti‑satellite tests in 2007 were for peaceful purposes, with the goal of disposing of a satellite that was going to fall. For its part, the United States was the first to carry out anti‑missile testing and has carried out the largest number of such tests. For example, in 1958, a B‑52 bomber launched a satellite intercepting a bomb, subsequently destroying an Explorer 6 satellite in orbit. In 1960, the United States carried out tests to destroy nuclear missiles using nuclear warheads and the United States Air Force carried out tests in the Marshall Islands in which a medium‑range missile was fired carrying a nuclear warhead. There are many examples in that regard and if the United States is willing, China can continue to point them out.
The representative of the United States thanked her Chinese counterpart for “the Wikipedia lesson”. If the China anti‑satellite test was for peaceful purposes, it makes her delegation question even more China’s deeply flawed and unverifiable draft treaty.