Three States blocked the adoption of the ATT this evening in New York. Iran said: "I would like to make it crystal clear that Iran objects to the draft decision." DPR Korea said that it "will be more than crystal clear", namely that it objects to the draft decision. It means it was blocking the draft decision. Syria said, "maybe speaking in English will be crystal clear." Syria also blocked consensus and formally objected to the adoption of the decision. It said that more than 120 countries had called for the words "unauthorised end user" to be included unambiguously in the treaty. The representative cited the WHO statement on the meaning of consensus from 4 August 1987, which meant adoption of a decision without formal objection or votes.
The President then gave the floor to Mexico. Mexico said that the overwhelming majority of States were in a position to adopt the treaty text. Mexico suggested to proceed to the adoption of the text as there is no established definition of the term "consensus" in the United Nations. Nigeria supported Mexico. Japan also supported Mexico. Costa Rica then supported Mexico's statement. Chile then supported Mexico's statement. Colombia "resolutely" supported Mexico.
But Russia then took the floor to say that not enough had been done to achieve consensus. A "strange thing has happened", that "we should simply ignore the rules of procedure". This, it said, is "quite unacceptable" and "a manipulation of consensus". Russian delegation categorically opposes this. The President then gave his understanding that one State could block consensus and he took it that Russia was blocking consensus. Iran then asked for the floor and said that everyone has to play by the rules. President concluded that there was no consensus in the room.
Kenya, speaking on behalf of many States, including Mexico, Norway, UK and USA, said that the will of the overwhelming majority of States was to adopt the treaty text. We will seek action in the General Assembly with a resolution "as soon as possible". Cote d'Ivoire on behalf of ECOWAS said that the text did not meet some of its concerns. For instance, it did not include the words "unauthorised end user" in the treaty. Yet, it found that the President's text showed greater progress. ECOWAS supported the draft treaty.
Peru deeply regretted that once again we had been unable to adopt the Arms Trade Treaty. It supported Mexico and Kenya. South Sudan supported Mexico. Trinidad & Tobago regretted that consensus was not possible. It hoped for more flexibility in the General Assembly. El Salvador "resolutely" supported Mexico. Papua New Guinea supported Mexico and Kenya. The Netherlands associated itself with Kenya's statement.
India said the draft fell short of its expectations. There was a "fundamental imbalance" in the text, biased against importers. It said consensus was well understood in the United Nations.
Uruguay supported Mexico's statement that there was no agreed definition of consensus.
The United Kingdom announced that they would take the text to the General Assembly as soon as possible. It was just "success deferred, and not deferred for very long". The treaty included human rights "at its heart".
Morocco said it regretted that no agreement was possible. It found the text imbalanced.
Guatemala deeply regretted that no agreement was possible today. It supported Mexico's statement. Sweden supported Kenya.
Pakistan said they were "close but not close enough". It wanted to see the principles in the treaty itself. It regretted the lack of definitions. Sudan regretted lack of explicit prohibition on transfers to non-State actors. It supported Russia.
Italy supported adoption by General Assembly as soon as possible.
Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that Arab demands had not been reflected in the text. It was astonished that foreign occupation was not mentioned in the principles section of the treaty. It wanted "end user" instead of "end use".
The European Union called for swift action by the General Assembly.
The USA said the final draft had its support.
Russia said that the Conference was close to a positive result. The text was "a little more mature". There was no explicit prohibition on transfers to non-State actors, which was a "huge gap". Article 6(3) was fundamental. "Knowledge" meant full conviction, "having reliable information". Cannot come our in full support of it.
China stated that they should not violate the principle of consensus.
France deeply regrets that just three delegations broke consensus.