DISARMAMENT COMMISSION HEARS DIVERGENT VIEWS ON SCOPE AND TIMING OF FOURTH SPECIAL ASSEMBLY SESSION ON DISARMAMENT
Press Release
DC/2554
DISARMAMENT COMMISSION HEARS DIVERGENT VIEWS ON SCOPE AND TIMING OF FOURTH SPECIAL ASSEMBLY SESSION ON DISARMAMENT
19960503 The Disarmament Commission this morning heard general support expressed for the importance of convening the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, but a divergence of views on the scope and timing of such a session.The representative of Indonesia, on behalf of the member States of the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed support for the general thrust of a paper submitted by Luvsangiin Erdenechuluun (Mongolia), Chairman of a working group on the special session, which was based on ideas and proposals submitted to the working group. Taking into account the need to conduct a thorough and adequate preparation for the successful conclusion of a fourth special session, he stressed that the preparatory committee for the session should be convened before the end of the fifty-first session of the Assembly.
The representative of Italy, on behalf of the European Union, said the exact date of the special session could be decided by the end of the next session of the Assembly. He went on to say that the Chairman's paper needed a clear reference to a balance between conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction in regard to the scope of the session. A shopping list of items would detract from a focused debate on the convening of a special session.
Concern was expressed by the representative of the United States that the cost of the session would be significant in times of scarce financial resources. Thus, such cost should have been mentioned in the Chairman's paper as a means of showing that the meeting should not be lightly undertaken. He added that the statement could also be broadened to include agreement on the need for desired results of the special session.
Statements in response to the working group Chairman's proposals were also made by the representatives of New Zealand, Norway, Canada, Brazil, Germany, Russian Federation, China, Venezuela, Republic of Korea and Egypt.
The Disarmament Commission is scheduled to meet again on Tuesday, 7 May to approve the report of its substantive session.
Commission Work Programme
The Disarmament Commission met this morning to formally exchange views on progress in its agenda item on a proposed fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. Working group II under the chairmanship of Luvsangiian Erdenechuluun (Mongolia) had been conducting a discussion on the subject. Proposals by Indonesia on behalf of the member States of the Non-Aligned Movement, Italy on behalf of the European Union, and by New Zealand have been considered by the working group. In addition, the working group Chairman has put forward a working paper.
The Chairman's working paper states that there was wide agreement that the exact date for the convening of the fourth special session on disarmament should be decided by the Assembly at its fifty-first session. As the importance of holding such a session is widely recognized, thorough preparation is a significant condition for its successful conclusion. The convening of the special session would provide the international community with a unique opportunity to assess the past in order to prepare better for the future.
The Chairman states that for an effective disarmament programme to be adopted by a special session of the Assembly, there was a need to draw lessons from past endeavours; there would also be a need to take stock of some fundamental changes and identify new problems and ways and means to solve them. For such an exercise to be comprehensive, all issues pertaining to disarmament and international security, including the disarmament machinery, would have to be addressed. The Chairman also notes that during working group discussions some delegations put forward specific proposals in regard to substantive issues for consideration by the preparatory committee for a fourth special session.
Statements
Mr. VATTANI (Italy), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the two weeks had produced a very interesting and stimulating discussion. He had tried his best to contribute to a positive atmosphere. In his statement of 30 April, he tried to put forward some basic principles which he thought could be shared by all participating delegations. The paper of the second working group was a good document and he felt he could accept it with just a few constructive changes. He hoped the exact date of the convening of a fourth special session could be decided by the end of the fifty-first session of the General Assembly. In addition, a clear reference was needed for a balance between weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons.
It was a concern to all that a clear reference to non-proliferation be contained in the document, he said. The use of a shopping list of items could
Disarmament Commission - 3 - Press Release DC/2554 205th Meeting (AM) 3 May 1996
be counter-productive and detract from a focused debate on the convening of a fourth special session. That was why he had proposed a three-stage debate, for which he had received much positive response -- developments in the international situation relevant to disarmament and non-proliferation following the end of the cold war; the recent progress achieved in disarmament; and future directions. Such an approach was centred on a discussion of general principles, rather than general items. Multilateral disarmament efforts would be given new life if consensus were reached on basic principles. He welcomed the non-confrontational mood that he had witnessed during the last two weeks of work, and he hoped for continued progress during the convening of the Assembly's First Committee in the fall.
PETER RIDER (New Zealand) said he supported the Chairman's paper, which provided a valuable summation of views on the fourth special session on disarmament, and was a useful basis for further discussion on the subject. He was confident that the spirit displayed over the past two weeks would be evident at the General Assembly.
Mr. MADDEN (United States) said the Chairman's paper was a valuable contribution and would serve as a basis for further work. He noted the statement in the working group's report that the Chairman's paper represented his personal views only. The Chairman's statement noted wide agreement in the working group that the fifty-first General Assembly should decide the date of the next special session on disarmament. However, as it was felt that it would be best to prepare thoroughly before deciding on a date, it would be risky to predict now that the Assembly would be ready to decide on a date during the fifty-first session. As suggested by the European Union, a decision on the date should be made by a consensus resolution of the General Assembly.
He said the introductory paragraph in the Chairman's paper mentioned the need for thorough and adequate preparation, a statement which he believed should have been broadened to include agreement on the need for desired results at the fourth special session. The cost of the session would be significant in times of scarce financial resources. Thus, such costs should have been mentioned in the Chairman's paper as a means of showing that the meeting should not be lightly undertaken.
Under the objectives section in the Chairman's paper, there should have been language on the need for a proper balance between nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, conventional arms and other disarmament issues, he said. Non-proliferation should have been specified as a general principle and objective. Much more attention was devoted to nuclear weapons. The next special session would take place in changed circumstances, after the end of the cold war. There should be discussion on a whole range of disarmament
Disarmament Commission - 4 - Press Release DC/2554 205th Meeting (AM) 3 May 1996
issues, including dramatic advances like deep reductions in nuclear weapons arsenals and the need for such reductions in conventional arms.
SUDJADNAN PARNOHADININGRAT (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of the member States of the Non-Aligned Movement, welcomed the efforts of the Chairman of the working group as an initial step towards a structured process for preparing the convening of a fourth special session of the Assembly on disarmament. The States of the Non-Aligned Movement could go along with the general thrust of the paper.
He noted that the Assembly at its fiftieth session had called for the establishment or a preparatory committee to prepare a draft agenda for the special session, to examine all relevant questions relating to that session and to submit its recommendations to the Assembly at its fifty-first session. Taking into account the need to conduct a thorough and adequate preparation for the successful conclusion of the proposed special session, he stressed that the preparatory committee should be convened before the end of the fifty- first session.
He added that the member States of the Non-Aligned Movement had expressed its views on the objectives of a fourth special session in its working paper. It also had submitted in the paper an indicative list of possible substantive issues for consideration by the preparatory committee.
PAUL GULLEIK LARSEN (Norway) said he supported the statement made on behalf of the European Union. There was a need for a consensus resolution on the convening of the fourth special session, which should take a balanced approach between conventional and nuclear weapons. A shopping list of topics could detract from focused debate. The cost of a fourth special session could also have been mentioned.
JOHN MICHAEL SNELL (Canada) said the working group demonstrated the depth of commitment to continue discussion on the issue. His Government supported the proposal of New Zealand submitted to the working group.
JOSE EDUARDO MARTINS FELICIO (Brazil) said the objectives of the Commission had been fully met in the exchange of views on the proposed fourth special session. The preliminary exchange had been very productive. No formal decision was to be taken by the Commission, but the work had a reference value in preparation for a fourth special session.
Mr. KELLAR (Germany) said that a fourth special session must be based on a common understanding of its scope and its objectives if it were to be successful. He hoped that the cooperative attitude in discussion would carry into the work of the First Committee at the fifty-first session of the
Disarmament Commission - 5 - Press Release DC/2554 205th Meeting (AM) 3 May 1996
Assembly. There was agreement that a consensus resolution was necessary in preparation for the convening of a fourth special session.
IOURI G. ORLOV (Russian Federation) said he wished to associate himself with the previous statements made on Working Group II. There had been a useful exchange of views leading to better clarification regarding a fourth special session. He believed that the session should become an important large-scale international event, with an important political result. No one here was interested in having a future special session end with nothing. The two documents prepared by the working group were useful, and represented an art of dealing with what was possible. He associated himself with those speakers who had noted the positive and non-confrontational atmosphere which had prevailed, and hoped preparation for a fourth special session would take place in the same kind of atmosphere.
LI SONG (China) expressed his support for the convening of a fourth special session. In the new international situation, he said a new special session was needed to review the past and look into the future, so that the international community could carve out a future course of disarmament together. Reasonable proposals had been put forward on disarmament, including those of China. The special session could comprehensively discuss important disarmament issues in depth. As long as all sides possessed the necessary political will, there could certainly be a successful session. The ideas and contributions made by all sides at the present session of the Commission could be used as a basis for future discussion. He hoped that through the joint efforts of the international community, a successful session could be promoted.
OSCAR GARCIA (Venezuela) expressed appreciation to the working group for its search for balance. He supported the paper submitted by it.
YOUNG SUN PAEK (Republic of Korea) said the paper would serve as a useful basis for further deliberations. The basic ideas it contained were in line with his government's position. The convening of a fourth special session would provide an opportunity to review progress achieved thus far and pave the way for future progress. He hoped that consensus on its timing would be achieved. The idea of three major areas, or a three-stage discussion, put forward by the delegation of Italy, deserved more attention.
MAGED A. ABDEL AZIA (Egypt) associated himself fully with the statement made by Indonesia on behalf of States of the Non-Aligned Movement. At a time when delegations should be working towards the substantive success of the next special session, they should not lose sight of the timing, which would play an important role in its success. The vote in the General Assembly, and the discussion in the working group, confirmed wide agreement on the need to
Disarmament Commission - 6 - Press Release DC/2554 205th Meeting (AM) 3 May 1996
decide on the timing of that session by the end of the fifty-first session of the General Assembly.
He said that although the views of various parties were still apart, the paper of the working group was very balanced, and did not concentrate on one over another. While the States of the Non-Aligned Movement, the European Union and New Zealand presented preliminary points of view, he was hoping for such points of view of the nuclear States. Regardless of the debate over timing, he had expected to learn what subjects the nuclear States wanted to discuss.
The CHAIRMAN, addressing his remarks to the representative of Egypt, said that two of the member States of the European Union were nuclear weapon States, and there was a working paper of the United States contained in the report of Working Group II. The list of items originally part of the first draft was no longer there, but that was not the doings of nuclear weapon States.
* *** *