With the benefit of "20-20 hindsight", we should therefore heartily thank the United States for having blocked agreement at the diplomatic conference in July 2012, as the treaty text that has ultimately been adopted is much better and stronger than the draft proposed by the then-Conference President, Ambassador Moritan.
Bolivia hoped for consensual limits on arms. The final draft had deficiencies and gaps. It also opposed transfers to unauthorised non-state actors. It would abstain in the vote.
Russia stated that the draft had a number of shortcomings, notably the lack of a specific prohibition on transfers to unauthorised non-state actors. It was particularly concerned about Article 6(3). Knowledge meant “full knowledge”—in Russian it would be translated as “possesses knowledge”. It would abstain in the vote.
Ecuador complained about "highly subjective" criteria in Article 7 and imbalances between importing and exporting states. It also complained about attempts to redefine "consensus". It would abstain in the vote.
Sudan noted the lack of a specific prohibition on transfers to unauthorised non-state actors. It regretted the lack of definitions. It would abstain in the vote.
Pakistan stated that it would vote in favour. It was not an arms control or a disarmament treaty, but about responsible arms trade. It stated that consensus in the UN was generally considered to be adoption of a decision without formal opposition. It regretted the lack of definitions. There was a relative lack of accountability for exporters.
In explanations after the vote, India stated that the treaty text fell short of its objections. It was not balanced, and was weak on terrorism and non-state actors. India had abstained on the resolution.
Egypt regretted the lack of consensus in the two diplomatic conferences and that a disarmament treaty was adopted by a vote. The provision of prohibitions should have included a reference to aggression. It also referred to resolutions of the Human Rights Council as being relevant for determinations of whether serious violations of human rights had occurred.
Belarus abstained because of the lack of a specific prohibition on transfers to unauthorised non-state actors. The reference to IHL and human rights was, it believed, insufficiently clear.
China stated that it had abstained and that the process of adoption of the ATT would not constitute a precedent for future arms negotiations.
Singapore regretted the lack of consensus.
DPR Korea stated that it had voted "no" resulting from great concerns with regard to the ATT. The treaty was in the interests of the exporters.
Malaysia stated that it had always supported the ATT process.
The UAE welcomed the adoption of the treaty and had voted in favour of the resolution. It associated itself with the concerns to be expressed subsequently by Lebanon. It regretted the lack of a reference to the rights of people under foreign occupation.
Lebanon regretted the lack of a reference to the rights of people under foreign occupation.
Eritrea stated that it had voted in favour but without prejudice to its views on the treaty.
Iran stated that it had voted against the resolution. It had many objections (more than a dozen) to the text of the treaty, including the reference to the UN Security Council.
In statements after vote, Mexico delivered a statement on behalf of many states. It stressed the relevance of human rights and humanitarian law to determinations of proposed transfers of conventional arms. "This is just the beginning. The hard work starts now."
Costa Rica speaking on behalf of a number of states stated that this was the first ever set of global standards to govern the arms trade.
The European Union stated its appreciation of the adoption of the treaty.
Colombia speaking on behalf of a number of states said that the text was the best that could be achieved in the prevailing context.
Lebanon speaking on behalf of the Arab Group said that they had hoped to join support for the treaty but they found that the text was not balanced.