UNITED NATIONS MEDIUM-TERM PLAN SHOULD FOCUS ON NUCLEAR, NOT CONVENTIONAL DISARMAMENT, FIRST COMMITTEE TOLD

21 October 1996

Press Release
GA/DIS/3059

UNITED NATIONS MEDIUM-TERM PLAN SHOULD FOCUS ON NUCLEAR, NOT CONVENTIONAL DISARMAMENT, FIRST COMMITTEE TOLD

19961021 Non-Aligned Countries Say First Committee Views Must Be Taken into Account in Organization's Policy Text

The disarmament portion of the United Nations medium-term for the period 1998-2001 must give priority to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the representative of Indonesia said this morning, as the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met to consider aspects of the proposed plan. The medium-term plan represents the principal policy directive of the United Nations. Speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, the representative of Indonesia stressed that nuclear weapons continued to be improved and remained a threat to international security. The need to balance the medium-term plan to give greater attention to nuclear issues was also expressed by the representatives of South Africa, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico and Oman. The plan's subprogramme on disarmament gave the impression that problems relating to nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction were in the process of being solved and therefore should not be the subject of action by the United Nations, the representative of Brazil said. Such a proposal was contradicted by information from the Secretary-General, the Security Council and various resolutions of the General Assembly, he added. The representative of Cuba said the proposed medium-term plan made no mention of nuclear disarmament or the elimination of nuclear weapons, even though there was majority support in the First Committee for such an emphasis. Since the medium-term plan plotted the Organization's future, its portion on disarmament must reflect the sensitive balance of views in the First Committee. The non-aligned proposal to establish a separate programme on disarmament in the medium-term plan sounded like a political agenda, the representative of the United States said. Its unrestrained emphasis on nuclear disarmament and almost passing reference to conventional disarmament seemed to reflect an indifference to post-cold war achievements. The programme was a financial planning tool; the appropriate forum for its discussion was the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). The representative of Ireland, speaking for the European Union, said the establishment of future priorities was an important part of the Organization's work. While those discussions should take place in the Fifth Committee, the views of the First Committee on disarmament matters should be taken fully into account. Alyaksandr Sychou (Belarus), Committee Chairman, said the statements made in today's debate would be forwarded to the Fifth Committee. The Committee will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue its general debate on disarmament and international security issues.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to discuss the United Nations medium-term plan for the four-year period 1998-2001 as it affects the First Committee (document A/51/6, programme I). The plan, which represents the principal policy directive of the United Nations, draws together the mandates adopted by Member States to guide the Organization's work. From those mandates, it distils a set of specific objectives and strategies for the period in question.

In its subprogramme directly relating to disarmament questions (subprogramme 1.3), the plan notes that recent positive changes in international relations had facilitated the search for consensus on a number of outstanding disarmament issues. The plan has four aims. The first -- for which the Centre for Disarmament is responsible -- is to provide organizational and substantive support to multilateral bodies entrusted with deliberations or negotiations on disarmament issues and to review meetings relating to multilateral disarmament agreements.

The second objective of the subprogramme is to monitor current and future trends in disarmament and international security. That would include post-disarmament problems, such as the economic and social consequences of disarmament, environmental damage and conversion. Particular attention would be paid to the Register of Conventional Arms and its possible regional variants.

The third aim is to continue to promote regional disarmament initiatives as an essential component of preventive diplomacy and peace-keeping. Regional solutions will be more vigorously pursued as regional conflicts increasingly threaten peace and security. Regional dialogue on crucial disarmament and security issues will be advanced. Specific disarmament concerns of Member States will be addressed through the provision of training and advisory services.

The fourth objective of the subprogramme is to provide impartial information on United Nations disarmament efforts to Member States, parliamentarians and diverse institutions, through the Centre's programme of publications and by access to its disarmament database.

Statements

FREDERICK O. BERGH (South Africa) said that his delegation associated itself with the position adopted by the Non-Aligned Movement of countries with respect to the medium-term plan. In reviewing the international disarmament agenda, the Committee should focus on its nuclear aspects. The non-aligned position reflected that priority. The African continent had suffered more heavily than most from the effects of light weapons, including anti-personnel

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3059 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1996

land-mines. They posed a significant challenge on a continent with limited resources and great developmental needs.

HUMBERTO RIVERO ROSARIO (Cuba) also supported the non-aligned position on the medium-term programme. Today's debate was welcome. The Committee should analyze the proposed medium-term plan and its disarmament programme, since that plan plotted the Organization's future. The ideas arising from the Committee's debate should be incorporated into the Organization's thinking. Cuba was therefore concerned about the view of some countries that analysis of the plan should be confined to the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). Transparency was needed.

The medium-term plan must reflect the mandates approved by Member States, he said. The views expressed by the Committee must reflect the sensitive balance that emerged from its debate. It could not become a tool for implementing plans not approved by Member States. The cold war might have ended, but disarmament goals seemed more distant than ever -- a fact confirmed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons.

The proposed plan before the Committee made no mention of nuclear disarmament or the elimination of nuclear weapons, he said. Yet there was majority support in the Committee for emphasis on nuclear disarmament, as borne out by the positive reception given to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons, as well as on the programme of action for the elimination of nuclear weapons. It was difficult to understand the excessive stress given to conventional disarmament in the proposed plan.

He went on to say that the plan's reference to regional variants on the Register of Conventional Arms failed to mention the need for full agreement on the part of regional authorities. Moreover, the plan failed to mention scholarships for disarmament training. As it stood, the plan represented an imposition on the First Committee of the Secretariat's views. The entire subparagraph relating to disarmament should be recast and reissued in the light of the points he had raised.

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia), speaking as Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement Working Group on Disarmament, said subprogramme 1.3 on disarmament and non-proliferation should be treated as separate and distinct from the overall mid-term plan. The Non-Aligned Movement called for a reassessment of the approaches used in the programme and a conscious effort to more accurately reflect its positions, which represented a majority in the Organization.

The Final Document of the Assembly's first special session on disarmament should serve as a guideline for the Organization's programme on disarmament, he said. As unanimously decided by the International Court of Justice, States were obligated to pursue good faith negotiations leading to

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3059 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1996

nuclear disarmament. The plan must give priority to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. It must also take account of the need for the Conference on Disarmament to establish an ad hoc committee to begin negotiating a phased programme of nuclear disarmament, aimed at the ultimate elimination of those weapons within a time-bound framework.

Nuclear weapons continued to threaten international security, and they continued to be improved, he said. Their complete elimination should continue to remain the highest priority of the international community, whose agenda should also include the elimination of other weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical and biological weapons.

He stressed the urgency of curbing the excessive production and development of conventional armaments, and the importance of global and regional approaches. Those efforts should take account of the legitimate needs of self-defence and the specific characteristics of each region. The United Nations should formulate its disarmament programmes in a balanced manner.

ACHILLES EMILIO ZALUAR (Brazil) said there was confusion in the programme between preventive diplomacy and preventive deployment. There was also confusion between post-conflict peace-building and development activities. Subprogramme 1.3 on disarmament gave a wrong impression of recent developments in the disarmament sphere, implying that problems relating to nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction were in the process of being solved and therefore should not be the subject of action by the United Nations. Such a proposal contradicted information provided by the Secretary- General, the Security Council and various resolutions of the General Assembly. The plan placed too much emphasis on regional disarmament. There was a need for more balance between its focus on global, regional and subregional efforts.

ANGELICA ARCE MORA (Mexico) supported the views that had just been expressed. The six paragraphs in subprogramme 1.3 on disarmament did not reflect international reality in the disarmament sphere. The United Nations disarmament activities should reflect views of Member States. Priorities must be established with respect to nuclear and conventional disarmament, based on an exchange of views on the matter.

JOHN H. KING (United States) said subprogramme 1.3 was a generally good blueprint and mission statement on which to base the Organization's work for the period 1998 to 2001. Much had been accomplished on the nuclear disarmament front. The subprogramme should therefore focus on conventional disarmament issues. Indeed, the agenda should reflect on a better balance between conventional and nuclear issues.

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3059 9th Meeting (AM) 21 October 1996

The non-aligned proposal to establish a separate programme on disarmament in the medium-term plan might reflect confusion regarding the plan's purposes, he said. As a mission statement on which to base financial and budgetary decisions, the plan would guide the Secretariat's work. The non-aligned proposal, however, sounded like a political agenda, which might not be relevant to the medium-term plan. The great contrast between the unrestrained emphasis on nuclear disarmament and the almost secondary, passing reference to conventional disarmament was striking. It seemed to reflect a misunderstanding, even an indifference, to post-cold war achievements. It thus confused and complicated the goal of making the world a safer place.

He said the programme was a financial planning tool, not a political statement. The Committee was therefore not the appropriate forum for discussing it. The Fifth Committee was the proper forum, and was assigned that task by the General Assembly. The Chairman of the First Committee could transmit a brief summary of text to facilitate the Fifth Committee's work.

ANDREW O'ROURKE (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the establishment of future priorities was an important part of the Organization's work. Those discussions should take place in the Fifth Committee, with the First Committee's views taken fully into account. As for the format of the medium-term plan, it was authorized by the General Assembly in December 1955 and corresponded to the format recommended by the Committee for Programme and Coordination. The European Union therefore supported it as drafted.

MOHAMED AL-HASSAN (Oman) expressed support for the statements made by South Africa, Cuba, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico. Today's debate was important; the proposed medium-term plan needed close examination. Regional disarmament efforts were of special importance, particularly in his own region, where the work of such bodies as the League of Arab States should be given careful consideration. The plan should also reconsider such outstanding proposals as that on establishing the Middle East as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

ALYAKSANDR SYCHOU (Belarus), the Committee Chairman, said the statements made in today's debate would be forwarded to the Chairman of the Fifth Committee.

* *** *