DISARMAMENT COMMISSION CONCLUDES 1996 SESSION AT HEADQUARTERS, 22 APRIL - 7 MAY

7 May 1996

Press Release
DC/2557

DISARMAMENT COMMISSION CONCLUDES 1996 SESSION AT HEADQUARTERS, 22 APRIL - 7 MAY

19960507 Adopts Draft Guidelines for International Arms Transfers; Views Differ regarding Fourth Special Assembly Session on Disarmament

Concluding its 1996 substantive session, the Disarmament Commission this morning adopted a set of draft guidelines for international arms transfers and brought into focus divergent views on the proposed fourth special session of the General Assembly on Disarmament.

The Commission took that action by a adopting without a vote the reports of its subsidiary bodies -- the working groups on international arms transfers and on an exchange of views on the fourth special session and the Committee of the Whole -- as well as the overall 1996 session report to the fifty-first session of the General Assembly.

The completion of the set of guidelines on international arms transfers was in particular response to Assembly resolution 46/36 H of 6 December 1991, which called upon States to give high priority to eradicating illicit trade in weapons and military equipment. In its 1995 fall session, the Assembly had requested the Commission to expedite its consideration of the issue with special emphasis on the adverse effects of the illicit transfer of arms and ammunition.

According to the working group I Chairman, Gheorghe Chirila (Romania), the guidelines adopted on international arms transfers focused primarily on illicit arms trafficking, but also offered some important developments in the general framework of the international arms transfers. The document was meant to provide a balanced and constructive contribution to the promotion and implementation of a set of principles and guidelines for the conduct of States in the sensitive and increasingly important domain of micro-disarmament, in the monitoring and the promotion of the self-restraint in that field, without affecting the legitimate right of States to self-defence.

In his introduction of the group's report, Mr. Chirila praised the positive political attitude and a genuine spirit of compromise along with a prevailing spirit of realism in negotiating a text which, while not perfect, represented a substantial consensus document in a complex and sensitive field.

He stressed the achievement of the group in clarifying conceptual issues, especially related to the distinction between licit and illicit arms transfers; for example, the phrase "illicit arms trafficking" was utilized in the guidelines to describe the overall concept of illicit transfers.

Luvsangiin Erdenechuluun (Mongolia), Chairman of working group II, on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, said that despite deep-seated differences, the exchange of views on the special session was distinguished by a surprising display of good will, realism and a spirit of cooperation and understanding. A Chairman's working paper, which was based on the specific ideas and proposals put forward in the working group, was generally accepted as providing the groundwork for the future deliberations of the body on the special session.

While there was broad support for the convening of a fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament, divergent views were put forward on its scope and timing. The countries of the Non-Aligned Movement favoured a decision on the date by the end of the next Assembly session; the European Union, along with the United States and New Zealand, called for a consensus resolution on the date and questioned the convening in 1997 of such a session in light of other disarmament meetings and conferences already scheduled. There was general agreement on the need for careful preparation and specific, agreed objectives before the convening of a special session.

The report of the Commission on its 1996 session was introduced by the Rapporteur, Rajab Sukayri (Jordan). He said the significant achievements of the substantive session were the result of the continuing cooperative atmosphere which characterized the work of the Commission.

He pointed out that the only area of difficulty during the current session was of an organizational, rather than substantive, nature. As indicated in the Commission's final report, in spite of overwhelming support for a third agenda item on nuclear-weapon-free zones, divergent views among a few delegations on the exact wording of the title prevented consensus inclusion of the item during the current session. It was hoped that such consensus would be possible in 1997, since there had been a general understanding among the majority of delegations to take up the issue at the next session.

By also adopting the report of the Committee of the Whole, the Commission decided to set up an open-ended consultation group to undertake the task of preparing a list of subject matters that could be included in the Commission agenda as substantive items, prior to the fifty-first session of the Assembly. A composite list of possible items to be included had been prepared by the Secretariat.

Disarmament Commission - 3 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

In closing remarks, Chairman Wolfgang Hoffman (Germany) said that the Commission was entitled to consider its 1996 session an important step forward. For the first time since 1993, a working group had achieved concrete results by adopting guidelines on international arms transfers. Finding new items for the future session was a task that lay ahead, and he encouraged delegations to take an active part in assisting the consultation group to that end.

The representative of Egypt made a statement on the adoption of the report of the Commission.

During the session, which began on 22 April, the Commission, a deliberative body with universal membership and mandated to make recommendations on disarmament issues, was unable to achieve consensus on a proposed third item on nuclear-weapon-free zones which had widespread support. Since 1993, the Commission had adopted an agenda of three specific items of deliberation during a schedule of three weeks and one day. The Commission Chairman said that the latest, modified session of two weeks, and the two- issue agenda should not be considered a precedent for future sessions.

In the general discussion, a number of delegations expressed regret that an item on nuclear-weapon-free zones could not be included in the 1996 agenda. While there was widespread support for a discussion of guidelines and principles for establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones, the delegation of India would not join a consensus, suggesting that the topic be "the role of nuclear- weapon-free zones in the context of global efforts aimed at nuclear disarmament". A proposal by the Chairman to employ a "consensus minus one" approach in order to proceed with the item was rejected.

Over the course of the session, delegations also expressed general support for the future role of the Commission in the overall field of disarmament. Many saw it as an important forum for non-nuclear and developing States.

Concluding Statements

FRANCESCO PAOLO FULCI (Italy) spoke on behalf of the European Union, and of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Slovak Republic and Norway. He said that, although the agenda had not included a third item, the outcome of the 1996 session was encouraging for the future work of the Disarmament Commission.

The international community rightly devoted much attention to all aspects of transfers of arms, and in particular, to illicit arms trafficking, he said. He was satisfied that working group I was able to adopt by consensus a set of guidelines on international arms transfers. Items on conventional

Disarmament Commission - 4 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

arms were susceptible to global treatment in the same manner as nuclear items. Consideration should also be given to follow-up work on conventional items at the Conference on Disarmament.

He said that in the case of licit transfers, comprehensive controls for arms exports and effective enforcement of those controls was essential, as well as increased transparency in international arms transfers, particularly by full submission to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. In the case of illicit trafficking, countries should focus on improved national legislative measures, as well as on improving international cooperation and coordination.

Working group II, on an exchange of views on the fourth special session on disarmament, produced an interesting and stimulating discussion, he said. He was grateful to the working group Chairman's paper which provided many useful elements for future work. The European Union, in its two statements of 23 and 30 April, had put forth the basic principles which he thought were shared by all participating delegations. He hoped those would help build the consensus necessary for a successful resolution at the Assembly's fifty-first session and for the fourth special session itself.

ANDELFO GARCIA (Colombia), on behalf of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that one stage of the process which began in the United Nations in 1988 had been completed upon the Commission's consensus adoption of a document, including guidelines to eliminate the illicit trafficking in arms. After all those years of work, there was now a draft on the guidelines for international arms transfers. Their adoption, despite the complexity of the issue, showed that the Commission could continue playing an important role in the disarmament process.

Discussion of the agenda item on the fourth special session on disarmament was encouraging, he said. Various States and groups of States had expressed views which could be used as a reference for work in the immediate future. There was a broad area of agreement on the need to convene such a session. However, there were still some disagreements about preparation and timing which had to be resolved. The countries of the Non-Aligned Movement felt sure that the session of the Commission had provided important input for the preparatory meetings that would ensure the success of the next special session.

He regretted that consensus was not reached on a third agenda item and hoped the agenda of only two items would not serve as a precedent.

DEIMUNDO ESCOBAL (Argentina) said the approved document on international arms transfers was the most outstanding achievement of the Disarmament Commission of the last five years. The guidelines provided clear and precise recommendations on such transfers. International monitoring should be seen in

Disarmament Commission - 5 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

the broader context of building up trust and establishing transparency. The Register of Conventional Arms also was an important confidence-building measure.

There had been positive movement in the second working group, he said. The Commission did not have the power to establish which issues should be taken up at a fourth special Assembly session on disarmament, but the working group had submitted papers by the United States, New Zealand and the States of the Non-Aligned Movement which faithfully reflected certain States' perceptions. On behalf of the European Union, Italy had issued a paper which contained important basic points which were useful for shaping a future special session. There was a need to adapt international bodies to present circumstances. Regarding the work of the Commission, items needed to be identified and analysed in advance, which would perhaps enhance the Commission's credibility.

GENEVIEVE HAMILTON (Australia) said she was disturbed by the inability of all delegations to agree on a third agenda item. Given the further development of the network of nuclear-weapon-free zones and the highly positive developments of the year, namely, the establishment of African and Asian nuclear-free zones, it should have been possible to agree on an approach.

She welcomed the international guidelines on arms transfers produced by working group I, whose report included recommendations to develop legislative and administrative guidelines at the national level. Unregulated access to small, lethal conventional arms threatened the security and stability of small States. Legal arms transfers could also be destabilizing. Reference to them in the report was also welcome, as well as the encouragement of efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the Register of Conventional Arms.

She praised the second working group Chairman's treatment of the subject on a fourth special session on disarmament. Adequate time to prepare was needed. Moreover, a manageable and constructive agenda needed to be adopted well in advance of any future session of the Disarmament Commission, so that it might make optimum use of its time to advance the global disarmament agenda.

EDUARDO TAPIA (Chile) expressed pleasure on the success of working group I in adopting a set of guidelines for international arms transfers. Working group II, on the fourth special session, had conducted a positive dialogue in examining the various views on the subject. A major challenge existed in examining the list of items to be considered at a fourth special session. He hoped that future sessions of the Commission would have a full agenda and appropriate time to consider it.

Disarmament Commission - 6 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

WANG XUEXIAN (China) expressed appreciation for the cooperative attitude of all delegations in establishing the set of guidelines on arms transfers. They should not be used to interfere in the affairs of sovereign States. Various principles in the guidelines should be realistically implemented. China supported the convening of a fourth special session of the Assembly on disarmament so that the international community might collectively determine the future course of disarmament efforts. China attached great importance to the work of the Commission, and the role of the Commission should be brought into full play.

ABDELKADER MESDOUA (Algeria) expressed regret that the Commission could not take up a third item, on nuclear matters. He hoped agreement could be reached on it during the next session and that the necessary time would be available for its consideration. Algeria would work towards the adoption of a consensus resolution by the fifty-first session of the Assembly on the convening of a fourth special session devoted to disarmament. He welcomed the success of the working group on international arms transfers. It demonstrated that the Commission would play an increasingly important role in the disarmament field.

PAUL ARONSOHN (United States) said his country would interpret the guidelines on international arms transfers according to its own national laws.

HUMBERTO RIVERO ROSARIO (Cuba) said his country hoped that the issue of a third item on nuclear issues could be resolved at the next session. The Commission had emerged from the 1996 session strengthened and renewed. It had reaffirmed its role as a forum in which all Member States could participate. Political will had been expressed. The consensus on guidelines for international arms transfers was a significant step. The guidelines should never be used, however, to interfere in the sovereign affairs of States.

He went on to say that transparency on arms transfers was not in itself useful. It had to be accompanied by a secure environment for all States to conduct their affairs. The Commission should continue work on the issue of transparency, particularly concerning the Conventional Arms Register. Regarding the fourth special session, he expressed hope that a consensus resolution could be agreed upon at the fifty-first session of the Assembly.

MYRNA PEÑA (Nicaragua) said the exchange of views on the fourth special session and international arms transfers were matters to which her delegation attached particular importance. The guidelines on transfers were a significant step forward to continuing progress in that very difficult area.

BEHROUZ MORADI (Iran) said that the success in reaching agreement on guidelines for arms transfers was due to the cooperation of all delegations, in particular, countries which relied on those weapons for their security. He hoped such cooperation would be carried over in efforts regarding nuclear and

Disarmament Commission - 7 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

other mass destruction weapons. Despite the document's lack of clarification regarding the responsibilities of the largest producers of conventional arms, it provided a good basis for collective efforts in the field of convention weapons.

Working group II had exceeded expectations with the production of a Chairman's paper which contained the basic elements needed for careful preparation of such a session, he said. He hoped the lack of agreement on a third agenda item, on the issue of nuclear-free zones, would not set a precedent for future sessions.

MYUNG CHUL HAHM (Republic of Korea) welcomed the agreement on guidelines for the international transfer of arms, which, he said, were the first code of conduct on the issue, and would pave the way for enhanced transparency.

There was still a long way to go, he said. Each country must improve and strengthen its national laws and regulations. Efforts needed to be undertaken towards regulating exports and imports of conventional arms. States which had not yet provided annual reports to the Register of Conventional Arms were encouraged to do so at the earliest possible date.

Regarding the fourth special session on disarmament, he shared the view contained in first working group Chairman's paper that such a session would provide an opportunity to review progress and prepare better for the future. Adequate and thorough preparation was the key to a successful outcome. Further considerations concerning timing needed to be undertaken in order to achieve consensus.

Despite several months of efforts, it was not possible to include in the 1996 agenda guidelines and principles of nuclear-weapon-free zones, he said. Considering their importance, such an item should be included in next year's agenda.

In closing remarks before the Commission, Chairman Wolfgang Hoffman said the session had had its ups and downs during the meetings and in the preparation phase. It was unfortunate that it took so long to agree on timing for the session, and that agreement had not been reached on a third agenda item. But he considered the year's session an important step forward. For first time since 1993, a working group had achieved concrete results by adopting guidelines on international arms transfers. On the sensitive issue of a fourth special session on disarmament, agreement was brought forward on a number of elements.

Finding new items for the future session was a task that lay ahead, and he encouraged delegations to take an active part in assisting the consultation group to that end. The session's list of possible items could serve as a good basis for such endeavour.

Disarmament Commission - 8 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

Commission Reports

The working group on international arms transfers adopted by consensus the text of a document entitled, "Guidelines for international arms transfers in the context of General Assembly resolution 46/30 H of 6 December 1991". The document is structured as follows: I. -- Introduction (including elements of definition); II. -- Scope; III. -- Principles; IV. -- Ways and Means (divided in two sections: "A" - National, and "B" - International); V. -- Institutional arrangement ("A" - Role of the United Nations, and "B" - Other institutional arrangement).

The introduction to the guidelines, included as an annex to the working group report (document A/CN.10/1996/CRP.3), states that the negative effects of illicit arms trafficking can often be disproportionately large, particularly for the internal security and socio-economic development of affected States. Illicit arms trafficking, which affects many countries and regions of the world, puts to the test the capacity of States to find a solution to it. Arms transfers should be addressed in conjunction with the question of maintaining international peace and security, reducing regional and international tensions, preventing and resolving conflicts, building and enhancing confidence, and promoting disarmament, as well as social and economic development. The United Nations has a legitimate interest in the field of arms transfers, recognized by the Charter, which refers specifically to the regulation of armaments for the maintenance of international peace and security.

In its resolution 46/36 H, the Assembly stated that three stages in the arms trade should be the focus of controls: the acquisition of arms by unauthorized persons; their export; and their delivery. The guidelines state that all stages of illicit arms trafficking should be the focus of scrutiny. "An essential factor in eradicating illicit arms trafficking is the effective control of arms to prevent them from being acquired by unauthorized persons."

According to the guidelines, States should bear in mind a number of principles in efforts to control international arms transfers. First of all, States should respect the principles of the right to self-defence, the sovereign equality of all Member States, non-interference in the internal affairs of States and the settlement of disputes by peaceful means. States should recognize the need for transparency in arms transfers and the responsibility to prohibit and eradicate illicit arms trafficking and the need for measures to achieve that end. They have responsibilities in exercising restraint over the production and procurement of arms, as well as transfers; economic or commercial considerations should not be the only factors in international arms transfers.

In addition, the guidelines state that arms-producing or supplier States have a responsibility to seek to ensure that the quantity and level of

Disarmament Commission - 9 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

sophistication of their arms exports do not contribute to instability and conflict in their regions or in other countries and regions. States receiving arms have equivalent responsibilities to seek to ensure that the quantity and level of sophistication of their arms imports are commensurate with their legitimate self-defence and security requirements.

Under national ways and means, States should ensure that they have an adequate system of national laws and/or regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over armaments and the export and import of arms in order to prevent illicit arms trafficking. States should also establish and maintain an effective system of export and import licences for international arms transfers with requirements for full supporting documentation. The alarming dissemination and illicit transfer of small arms and light weapons and the serious threat they pose require States to ensure strong and effective supervision of all aspects of trade in such weapons.

On international ways and means, the guidelines state that all arms transfer agreements and arrangements, in particular between governments, should be designed so as to reduce the possibility of diversion of arms to unauthorized destinations and persons. States should report all relevant transactions in their annual reports to the Register of Conventional Arms.

Transparency measures concerning arms transfers are not in themselves measures of limitation or restriction, the guidelines point out, but they can, in several ways, promote and facilitate the introduction of unilateral or multilateral measures of restraint, as well as help in the detection of arms transferred illegally. The United Nations, the Conference on Disarmament and other appropriate international forums should continue to play an important role in the elaboration and adoption of transparency measures in the field of arms transfers, including the possible improvement of the Register.

The report of the working group on the fourth special session on disarmament reviewed its timetable of work and attached a report by its Chairman, Luvsangiin Erdenechuluun (Mongolia), described as the basis for future discussion by the working group. The Chairman's paper, an attempt to bring the debate into focus, highlighted the need for preparation as a significant condition for the successful conclusion of a fourth special session on disarmament. It also reiterated the wide support for deciding the exact date for the session's convening during the fifty-first General Assembly.

The working group had before it several working papers by delegations containing specific proposals on timing and on substantive issues for consideration by the Preparatory Committee for the fourth special session.

According to the report, a working paper was submitted by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the member States of the Non-Aligned

Disarmament Commission - 10 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

countries calling attention to the General Assembly resolution which decided, if possible, to determine the exact date and agenda of a fourth special session through consultations by the end of the fiftieth Assembly. According to that resolution, a preparatory committee should be established to prepare a draft agenda for submission to the fifty-first session of the Assembly.

The member States of the Non-Aligned countries also envisaged eight categories of possible substantive issues. Those included review and appraisal of the present international situation, a phased programme for the reduction of nuclear weapons stockpiles within an agreed time-frame, and measures of nuclear disarmament at global and regional levels, including a comprehensive test-ban treaty and a convention on the cut-off of fissile materials for weapons purposes.

Also before the working group was a working paper submitted by the representative of Italy on behalf of the European Union, which acknowledged general support for convening a fourth special session "in due course", along with a suggestion that the date for the session be decided by a consensus resolution of the next General Assembly. In addition, the special session should be carefully prepared and its aims generally agreed upon before fixing a date. Fixing a date should also take into account other envisaged major disarmament and non-proliferation conferences. That suggestion did not constitute a reason for not holding a new special session, but indicated that careful thought needed to be given to its timing.

The European Union also stated that in determining the items to be examined at the special session, developments in the international situation relevant to disarmament and non-proliferation should be taken fully into account, and the agenda should balance subjects relating to weapons of mass destruction and conventional armaments.

Another working paper by the United States stated that there appeared to be a tendency to put the cart before the horse in addressing the issue of another special session. There seemed to be interest in setting a date for a special session before establishing what it would be all about. The United States referred to a long list of multilateral endeavours on disarmament that provided opportunities for extensive debate, particularly on nuclear disarmament -- that had produced no concrete results due to differing perceptions of what had been achieved in the field of nuclear disarmament and what should be the basis for future work. Another special session risked another unsatisfactory result if a firm foundation for it was not first established.

At a time of scarce financial resources, the United States asked if the estimated $15 million for such a session would be worth the anticipated result. The international community and the disarmament community was owed the attempt to do it "right" next time, deliberately and cooperatively. Until

Disarmament Commission - 11 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

such time as agreement was reached on what it is the session would be trying to do and to achieve, the United States could not join consensus on scheduling a special session on disarmament. It did not foresee such consensus emerging in the next few years, but was willing to do its part to work towards that goal.

Another working paper submitted to the Commission by New Zealand said that another special session on disarmament would provide the chance to review the process from the new security perspective. New Zealand supported the beginning of a preparatory process before the end of the fifty-first session. However, it was concerned at the wisdom of scheduling such a session as early as 1997, citing the full programme of United Nations meetings. Also, careful preparation and compromise were needed over a sustained period if a fourth session was to succeed. Its objectives and agenda must be clear. Politically, the delegation attached importance to the historic significance of holding the session before the end of the century.

Deciding on those matters and on the timing of such a session was not the mandate of the Disarmament Commission, New Zealand said, but of the Preparatory Committee. The aim of the fourth special session should be to provide an efficient structure for disarmament efforts. The agenda, in New Zealand's view, should include a section on overall review of progress on conventional weapons, nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and on the disarmament machinery.

According to the report of the Committee of the Whole, that body, upon the request of a large number of delegations, was entrusted with two tasks, namely, the tentative choice of dates for the 1997 substantive session of the Disarmament Commission and appropriate approaches for selecting subject matters to be included in its agenda. The Committee, in turn, had requested the Secretariat to prepare a list of possible subject matters for inclusion in the agenda, taking into account various proposals made by the delegations, as well as existing lists on the subject. The list was to be organized into three categories -- nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction; conventional weapons; and other disarmament issues. The list provided by the Secretariat is included as an annex to the report of the Committee.

Regarding the dates for the 1997 session, the Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Hoffman (Germany), chose the tentative dates of 21 April to 12 May 1997. It also decided to set up an open-ended consultation group under the chairmanship of the representative of Indonesia to undertake the task of preparing a list of subject matters that could be included in the Commission agenda as substantive items, prior to the fifty-first session of the Assembly.

Disarmament Commission - 12 - Press Release DC/2557 206th Meeting (AM) 7 May 1996

Background on Commission

The Disarmament Commission, a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly with universal membership, was set up to make recommendations on specific disarmament issues and to follow up on the decisions of the Assembly's special sessions on disarmament. The Commission, which resulted from a decision of the first special session in 1978, replaced a limited-membership body which existed from 1952 to 1965.

In recent years, the Commission has streamlined its work under reforms adopted in 1990. Since 1993, it has limited its discussion to three specific items. In recent years, the Commission has negotiated such confidence and security-building measures as the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, and guidelines and recommendations for objective information on military matters and for regional approaches to disarmament.

Commission Officers

Chairman: Wolfgang Hoffman (Germany)

Vice Chairmen: Representatives of the following States: Colombia, Finland, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Ukraine and the United Republic of Tanzania.

Rapporteur: Rajab Sukayri (Jordan)

Chairman, Working Group I: Gheorghe Chirila (Romania)

Chairman, Working Group II: Luvsangiin Erdenechuluun (Mongolia)

* *** *