04 november 2020 12th Meeting of the First Committe. GA/DIS/3657 Disarmament and International Security Committee.

75th General Assembly of the United Nations, Session for the Years 2020-2021.

4th of the month of november 2020: 12th Meeting of the First Committee.
Document no. GA/DIS/3657:
Disarmament and International Security Committee.

of Benedetto Loprete

Approving 5 Drafts, First Committee Remains Divided over Disarmament Approaches, Rejecting Proposal on Investigating Biological, Chemical Weapon Use. Approving five draft resolutions aimed at curbing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) rejected one that would have had the Security Council consider complaints of incidents involving biological and chemical weapon use, as delegates expressed divergent views on ways to hold perpetrators accountable, with some cautioning against politically driven proposals.

Rejecting a draft resolution on the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1), by a recorded vote of 31 in favour to 63 against, with 67 abstentions, delegates also decided to reject five of its preambular and operative paragraphs. Among those provisions, the General Assembly would have reaffirmed the invitation to the Security Council to consider immediately any complaint lodged under article VI of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” and the resolutions concerning the implementation of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” (Document A/C.1/75/L.29) and the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1).

Several Member States voiced support for some elements of the draft, which was tabled by the Russian Federation, but said they would vote against it. Switzerland’s delegate, also speaking for Australia and the United Kingdom, said the draft would have destabilized existing disarmament instruments. Noting that the issue had become deeply politicized, New Zealand’s representative said the draft resolution also would have given the Security Council an outsized role in chemical weapons response.

By a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 8 against (Cambodia, China, Iran, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe), with 26 abstentions, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” and the resolutions concerning the implementation of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” (Document A/C.1/75/L.29) and the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1), after deciding, by separate recorded votes, to retain six preambular and operative paragraphs.

In explaining their delegations’ position, several representatives stressed the importance of the Chemical Weapons Convention itself, with the United States delegate, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, highlighting that the draft resolution was a valuable reflection of the instrument’s goals. The users of chemical weapons must be held to account, he said, underscoring that Syria must stop deploying them without delay, while the Russian Federation should respond to urgent questions on the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.

In a similar vein, Turkey’s delegate condemned the deployment of chemical weapons, which was a crime against humanity, noting their use in Syria was a troubling sign of their re-emergence as a tool of war. Also voting in favour of the draft, Ecuador’s delegate offered a note of caution, highlighting that any texts on chemical weapon use must take care not to undermine work carried out by the members representatives of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), nor indeed the work of the instrument itself.

Iran’s representative said his delegation voted against the draft resolution, which was a divisive means to polarize, rather than unite, Member States. The Russian Federation’s delegate said the draft was detrimental to the Chemical Weapons Convention, not beneficial. Moreover, language in the text demonized some States, he said, noting references to Mr. Navalny that had politicized the draft and adding that there are no more doubts that Western States were trying to undermine the Chemical Weapons Convention and divide the members representatives of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

During the morning-long meeting, the Committee approved a draft resolution concerning the measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to none against with 3 abstentions (Central African Republic, Israel, United States).

It also approved the following draft resolutions by consensus: preventing the acquisition by terrorists of radioactive sources; measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; and the criteria and the principles relative to the “Bacteriological and Biological Weapons Convention”.

A number of representatives delivered explanations of their delegations’ position on nuclear-weapon-related drafts approved on 3 November and on items related to the Committee’s work on other weapons of mass destruction and disarmament aspects of outer space.

Speaking in exercise of reply were representatives of the Russian Federation and Turkey.

The First Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 6th of november 2020, to take action on all draft resolutions and decisions.

Action on Draft Texts.

The Committee opened its meeting by hearing explanations of vote following yesterday’s action on draft texts in its cluster on nuclear weapons. (For details, please see Press Release of the Document no. GA/DIS/3656).

Several delegations explained their vote against the draft resolutionJoint Courses of Action and Future-oriented Dialogue towards a world without nuclear weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.71), which Mexico’s representative said weakens and ignores existing agreements. Austria’s delegate said his delegation’s calls for more balanced language were not heeded. Canada’s delegate, also speaking for Belgium, Chile, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland, said the delegations would abstain or vote against “L.71”, explaining that while appreciating Japan’s effort to find common ground, the draft does not reflect a number of well understood principles. She added that calls cannot be diluted for the complete dismantlement of the nuclear missile programmes of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Similarly, Brazil’s representative expressed reservations over some of its language, including provisions that seem to limit the obligations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Saudi Arabia’s representative said his delegation abstained on “L.71” because it does not mention the resolution “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East – Document number 46/30” of the 6th of the month of december of the year 1991. The representative of South Africa said “L.71” – which his delegation abstained on – can negatively impact previously agreed consensus of Non-Proliferation Treaty review conferences. Certain language in the draft presents obstacles for the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in regions where such weapons are not present, he added. France’s representative said his delegation abstained because the “Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (NTBT)’s entry into force has been a long-standing priority and is essential as a step to banning such activities. While supporting the extension of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START Treaty), “L.71” does not reflect the reality that the United States and the Russian Federation have arsenals that are incommensurate with others.

Several delegates explained their position on the draft resolution “Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (Document A/C.1/75/L.58) and the “Partial Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (PTBT); the Limited Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (LTBT) and the “Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (NTBT), including the representative of the United States, who said his delegation voted against it because China and the Russian Federation can potentially violate its provisions without detection, allowing them to improve and increase their nuclear arsenals. “L.58” fails to call out irresponsible nuclear testing conducted by Moscow and Beijing, he added, noting that while the United States will not become a party to the “Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (NTBT), it will not resume nuclear testing unless necessary and will call on all States to declare a moratorium on such activities. The representative of the Russian Federation said he was committed to the universalization of the “Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (NTBT), adding that remaining Annex 2 States are responsible for it not having entered into force. “L.58” is weaker than previous versions, he noted, calling for its authors to better account for Moscow’s input in drafting next year’s version.

Israel’s representative said he voted against the draft resolution concerning the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Nuclear Weapons dated the 7th of the month of july of the year 2017 (Document A/C.1/75/L.6) and the Non-Proliferation Treaty of nuclear weapons (Document A/C.1/75/L.5) and had not participated in negotiations of the instrument. Israel’s reservations on the matter stem from concerns related to arms control mechanisms that fail to account for real-world security contexts.

Syria’s representative said his delegation voted in favour of the draft resolutions concerning the “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East – Document number 46/30” of the 6th of the month of december of the year 1991 and in particular the “Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (MENWFZ)” of the 9th of the month of december 1974, the Document concerning Treaty establishing the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone of the 8th of the month of september of the year 2006, (Document A/C.1/75/L.1) and “L.2” because the issues they cover are important for the region and the world. He called on many countries, including Israel, to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, his delegation remains convinced that Israel will not join as long as the United States and others continue to protect its nuclear weapon programme.

Switzerland’s delegate said that while casting a vote in favour of the draft resolution concerning “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East” of the 26th of the month of october 2016 and in particular the “Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (MENWFZ)” of the 9th of the month of december 1974, the Document concerning Treaty establishing the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone of the 8th of the month of september of the year 2006, (Document A/C.1/75/L.2), he regretted to note that it refers to only one State in this region. On the draft resolution concerning the “Follow-up to the 2013 high-level meeting of the General Assembly on nuclear disarmament” (Document A/C.1/75/L.17), his country abstained, referring to his delegation’s explanation of position from the previous session. His delegation voted in favour of the draft resolutionTowards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments” (Document A/C.1/75/L.54).

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that his delegation abstained on “L.54”, as the draft is unbalanced. Nuclear blackmail against his country continues unabated, and it is natural that a favourable environment should be created if a dialogue is to be held.

Pakistan’s representative said his delegation voted in favour of the draft resolutionFollow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.55), as part of its commitment for a nuclear-weapon-free world based on universally agreed principles. His delegation consistently supports “L.58”, he said, noting that Pakistan is not bound by any provisions that stem from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. On “L.71”, he noted Japan’s efforts to find consensus, but said Pakistan could not support the unrealistic expectation of universal adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Also delivering statements on their delegations’ position on nuclear-weapon-related drafts were representatives of Malaysia, Switzerland, Indonesia, Colombia, Ireland, Australia, Ecuador, Argentina, Kazakhstan and Spain.

Ahead of taking action on draft resolutions and decisions on other weapons of mass destruction Poland’s delegate introduced a text and the Russian Federation’s representative delivered a general statement. Several representatives explained their delegations’ position on the draft resolutions concerning the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” and the resolutions concerning the implementation of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” (Document A/C.1/75/L.29) and the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1).

On “L.29”, India’s representative said his delegation would support “L.29”, as any use of chemical weapons is reprehensible. Meanwhile, Iran’s delegate said it is essential to preserve the integrity of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the members representatives of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) through “L.29”, however, the draft is being used to highlight controversial issues and stoke polarization, rather than promote unity on the instrument’s principles.

At the same time, Cuba’s representative, reiterating her full commitment to the non-discriminatory phase relative to the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” and the resolutions concerning the implementation of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” (Document A/C.1/75/L.29) and the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1), said her delegation cannot support “L.29” and will abstain. Egypt’s representative, also voicing strong support for that instrument alongside international efforts to mitigate the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors, said his delegation cannot support “L.29” this year, as many of its proponents fail to positively contribute to nuclear disarmament efforts and are thus not in a position to preach to others on these issues.

Several delegates explained why they would vote against “L.65/Rev.1”. The representative of the United States regretted to note Moscow’s intentions to undermine United Nations mechanisms to investigate the use of chemical weapons, highlighting that “L.65/Rev.1” includes deeply troubling language that implies that any State party to the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” and the resolutions concerning the implementation of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” (Document A/C.1/75/L.29) and the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1) seeking to report concerns of their use must go through the Security Council. This runs counter to existing mechanisms for initiating such an investigation, he said.

Germany’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said she could not support “L.65/Rev.1”. While supporting the mechanisms mentioned therein, the bloc also fully supports OPCW. Further, the independence of the Secretary-General’s Mechanism is crucial to allow investigations to move forward. Switzerland’s delegate, also speaking on behalf of Australia and the United Kingdom, expressed concern over the erosion of key disarmament instruments in recent years and noted that “L.65/Rev.1” will continue this trend. As such the group would vote against the draft as a whole and on operative paragraph 3, operative paragraphs 4, 8 and 9, and abstain or vote against preambular paragraph 8. New Zealand’s representative said his delegation will vote against the draft and its separate paragraphs because the issue is being politicized and puts undue emphasis on the role of the Security Council on responding to the alleged use of biological and chemical weapons.

Also delivering an explanation of vote were representatives of Canada and Syria.

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved the following draft resolutions: “Measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction” (Document A/C.1/75/L.35); “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” and the resolutions concerning the implementation of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” (Document A/C.1/75/L.29) and the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1)” (Document A/C.1/75/L.52); and the resolution concerning the “Preventing the acquisition by terrorists of radioactive sources” (Document A/C.1/75/L.68).

The Committee then approved the draft resolutionMeasures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol” (Document A/C.1/75/L.18), by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Central African Republic, Israel, United States).

Prior to approving the draft resolutions “Implementation of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” and the resolutions concerning the implementation of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” (Document A/C.1/75/L.29) and the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1), by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 8 against (Cambodia, China, Iran, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe), with 26 abstentions, the Committee held a separate recorded vote on six preambular and operative paragraphs.

By a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 7 against (Belarus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria, Zimbabwe), with 26 abstentions, the Committee decided to retain preambular paragraph 6, by which the Assembly would re-emphasize its support for the decision of the members representatives of the members representatives of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Director General to continue the mission to establish the facts about allegations of the chemical weapon use in Syria.

The Committee also decided to retain, by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 15 against, with 55 abstentions, operative paragraph 2, by which the Assembly would condemn the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon against Alexei Navalny in the Russian Federation, and note with grave concern the 6 October 2020 OPCW Technical Secretariat note on the report on activities in response to Germany’s request for technical assistance.

The Committee then decided to retain, by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 12 against, with 34 abstentions, operative paragraph 3, by which the Assembly would condemn that chemical weapons, since 2012, have been used in Iraq, Malaysia, Syria and the United Kingdom.

By a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 11 against, with 34 abstentions, it decided to retain operative paragraph 4, by which the Assembly would take note of several OPCW fact-finding mission reports on locations in Syria, including on the alleged the use of toxic chemicals as a weapon.

The Committee also decided, by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 16 against, with 31 abstentions, to retain operative paragraph 5, by which the Assembly would recall the adoption of decision C-SS-4/DEC.3 of the 27th of the month of june of the year 2018 of the Chemical Weapons Convention concerning the principles and the norms concerning the addressing the threat from from the chemical weapons use.

The Committee then decided, by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 12 against, with 38 abstentions, to retain operative paragraph 17, by which the Assembly would express grave concern that the members representatives of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Technical Secretariat cannot fully verify that Syria has submitted a declaration that can be considered accurate and complete.

The Committee then rejected the draft resolution concerning the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1), as amended, by a recorded vote of 31 in favour to 63 against, with 67 abstentions, also rejecting, by separate recorded votes, several preambular and operative paragraphs.

By a recorded vote of 38 in favour to 43 against, with 67 abstentions, the Committee decided to reject preambular paragraph 8, by which the Assembly would have called upon all States parties to the criteria and the principles relative to the “Bacteriological and Biological Weapons Convention” for continued efforts to strengthen the agreement.

The Committee also decided to reject, by a recorded vote of 28 in favour to 55 against, with 65 abstentions, operative paragraph 3, by which the Assembly would have reaffirmed the invitations to the Security Council, made in the Final Declarations of the sixth, seventh and eighth Biological Weapons Convention Review Conferences, to consider immediately any complaint lodged under article VI of the instrument, among other things.

It also decided to reject, by a recorded vote of 30 in favour to 60 against, with 59 abstentions, operative paragraph 4, by which the Assembly would have reaffirmed that any report brought to the attention of the Secretary-General by any State party to the criteria and the principles relative to the “Bacteriological and Biological Weapons Convention” must be considered and addressed within the instrument’s framework.

By a recorded vote of 29 in favour to 60 against, with 58 abstentions, it decided to reject operative paragraph 8, by which the Assembly would have encouraged Member States to assess the effectiveness of the Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1).

The Committee also decided, by a recorded vote of 32 in favour to 58 against, with 56 abstentions, to reject operative paragraph 9, by which the Assembly would have requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the issues referred to in paragraph 8 and to submit a substantive report to the world body at its seventy-sixth session.

Several delegates explained their positions after voting on draft resolutions related to other weapons of mass destruction, with Iran’s representative saying his delegation voted in favour of “L.65/Rev.1”, as it contains many positive paragraphs, including one condemning the use of chemical agents as weapons. He also emphasized that the world has witnessed the abuse of the Security Council by the United States.

Speaking on “L.29”, Malaysia’s representative, condemning the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances, said his delegation voted in favour of the draft as a whole, while abstaining on several operative paragraphs. Ecuador’s representative said his delegation voted in favour of the draft, as a signal of its continuing support. He also stressed that drafts addressing chemical weapons must not weaken the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” and the resolutions concerning the implementation of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” (Document A/C.1/75/L.29) and the “Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons” (Document A/C.1/75/L.65/Rev.1) and the work of the members representatives of the members representatives of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Also voting in favour of “L.29”, the representative of the United States, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, said the draft reflects the Chemical Weapons Convention’s goals and objectives. Many States remain steadfast in holding accountable those who defy the instrument, he said, adding that the Asaad regime must cease using chemical weapons and Russian Federation must provide a full account of the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. Turkey’s representative said his delegation voted in favour of the draft, noting that the use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity and condemning that their use has re-emerged in various parts of the world, particularly in Syria.
https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/download-convention
Voting against “L.29”, the representative of the Russian Federation said the draft cannot be used to demonize certain States and damage the standing of the Chemical Weapons Convention. “There are no more doubts that Western States undermine the Chemical Weapons Convention and divide the members representatives of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)”, he stressed, adding that references to the Navalny case further indicate the politicization of the draft. The text is no more than a provocation against Moscow, he added.

Syria’s representative said statements delivered by Turkey were full of errors and unsubstantiated accusations, adding that: “It is widely known that Turkey uses weapons of mass destruction in its territory”. Ankara also supports terrorist groups in the region, including by funneling them into Syrian territory, he said.

Also delivering explanations of vote were representatives of India, Mexico, Algeria, Brazil, Argentina, Singapore and Guatemala.

Turning to a range of draft resolutions and decisions under the theme of disarmament aspects of outer space, the Committee heard from several representatives, who made general statements and introduced draft resolutions. Echoing a common observation heard through this segment, Egypt’s representative noted with regret that all proposals under this cluster are being put to a vote, a situation showing the wish of some States to turn outer space into an arena for an arms race that could have catastrophic consequences. Cuba’s delegate said the threat of such an arms race undermines the possibility of people achieving their aspirations. Expressing concern that certain technologies are being used to undermine the security of States, including a network of spy satellites, she said Cuba supports the adoption of a legally binding treaty to prevent the placing of weapons in outer space.

Several delegates shared their perspectives, with Venezuela’s representative saying his delegation rejects a trend to promote division among members of the Organization and to vote on individual paragraphs in order to promote individual goals over collective interests. Also rejecting a militaristic approach to outer space alongside the actions of certain States to turn the realm into a theatre of war, he said Venezuela co-sponsored several related draft resolutions, including “L.62”, the resolutionPrevention of an arms race in outer space” (Document A/C.1/75/L.3) and the “report of the Secretary General of the United Nations “Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities” (Document A/C.1/75/L.66). China’s delegate expressed shock to learn that a vote had been called for several preambular paragraphs of the draft resolutionNo first placement of weapons in outer space” (Document A/C.1/75/L.62). Wondering if anything was wrong with these provisions, as all countries are interdependent, he said outer space security teaches that humankind is faced with all sorts of threats and no one can sit idly by.

Reflecting on the draft resolutionReducing space threats through norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours” (Document A/C.1/75/L.45/Rev.1), the representative of the Russian Federation said that outer space is the common heritage of mankind and its future depends on how it is able to manage its achievements in the exploration of outer space. While his delegation proposed a number of initiatives to prevent an arms race in that realm, work has still not begun on advancing the issue, due to a lack of desire and political will on the part of United States and others, he said, wondering whether the First Committee is suited to approve “L.45”. The representative of the United Kingdom said “L.45” contends that further developing norms and responsible behaviours in outer space is an essential component in preventing an arms race in outer space. As such, he said he sees no grounds for a motion that the Committee is not competent to vote on this draft.

Right of Reply.

The representative of the Russian Federation, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said Moscow had not violated its unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests, as alleged by the United States, and unlike Washington D.C., his delegation has already ratified the “Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty” (NTBT).

The representative of Turkey said Syria uses the Committee to distort facts and the Government continues to violate international humanitarian law.

Benedetto Loprete

Source:
75th General Assembly of the United Nations, Session for the Years 2020-2021.
4th of the month of november 2020: 12th Meeting of the First Committee.
Document no. GA/DIS/3657:
Disarmament and International Security Committee.

Source:
75th General Assembly of the United Nations, Session for the Years 2020-2021.
4th of the month of november 2020: 12th Meeting of the First Committee.
Document no. GA/DIS/3657:
Disarmament and International Security Committee.

Source:
75th General Assembly of the United Nations, Session for the Years 2020-2021.
4th of the month of november 2020: 12th Meeting of the First Committee.
Document no. GA/DIS/3657:
Disarmament and International Security Committee.