FIRST COMMITTEE BEGINS TWO-DAY DISCUSSION OF AGENDA REFORM
Press Release
GA/DIS/3090
FIRST COMMITTEE BEGINS TWO-DAY DISCUSSION OF AGENDA REFORM
19971103 The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to begin a two-day exchange of views on the rationalization of its work and reform of its agenda. The discussion focused on further streamlining disarmament efforts by, among others, withholding draft resolutions that had little or no chance of success and resuming a Committee session during the year, thereby eliminating the need for the United Nations Disarmament Commission.The Committee Chairman, Mothusi Nkgowe (Botswana), said that those draft resolutions that had been around for decades and that had no chance of success could be withheld. In addition, although the Committee had accomplished a lot in past years, analysis had demonstrated that those accomplishments were "somewhat lopsided" -- with the biggest changes falling on procedural aspects, while the substantive part was almost untouched.
The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said that the Committee should consider resuming its sessions throughout the year, much like the Fifth Committee. With resumed Committee sessions, there would be no need for the United Nations Disarmament Commission. He also advised merging the First Committee with the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).
Statements were also made by the representatives of Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union and Associated States), Japan and Canada.
The First Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 4 November, to continue the exchange of views on rationalization of its work and reform of its agenda.
Statements
The Committee Chairman, MOTHUSI NKGOWE (Botswana), said that since 1984 discussions on the rationalization process of the Committee had become part and parcel of the exercise aimed at enhancing the overall effectiveness of the United Nations General Assembly and its main bodies as well as the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission.
While there was little room for procedural change, a strategic opportunity existed with respect to the substantive changes, especially with regard to re-examining the Committee's agenda, he continued. However, attempts to streamline the agenda were met with political and conceptual difficulties, while procedural changes proved to be more feasible. While a lot had been accomplished by the Committee in the course of the past years, analysis proved that these accomplishment were "somewhat lopsided" -- with the biggest changes falling on procedural aspects, while the substantive part was almost untouched.
The reason for a relatively slow pace of the reform of the Committee's substantive agenda "lies in the divergence of political and security interests of different countries, groups of countries and even subregions and regions", he went on. For example, while a broad consensus seemed to exist on the need to further rationalize the present disarmament machinery -- the First Committee, the United Nations Disarmament Commission, the Conference on Disarmament -- there was no agreement on the ways and means of achieving those lofty goals.
Moreover, he said that a number of countries for the first time at the current session questioned the usefulness of structured discussions the way they had been done for the last three years. Some countries, speaking on behalf of a sizeable number of delegations, had suggested that it was time either to abolish the structured discussions as such, or to use them for consideration of theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of disarmament.
Member States could adopt more drastic and innovative approaches and, thus, display a higher degree of readiness to tackle the vital areas of national security interests, he said. They could begin by formulating an international disarmament agenda that was practical, action-oriented, free of any ideological overtones, and focused on attainable goals.
He said that a number of possible steps could be undertaken by the Committee that, although not fully free of so-called side effects, could lessen any possible negative consequences and open up new horizons. For example, those draft resolutions that had been around for decades and that had no chance of achieving a consensus, or at least overwhelming support, could be withheld. The Committee could also refrain from repeatedly submitting the same texts, substituting only a couple of words and pretending that those alterations took into consideration the real changes taking place in the global disarmament and security environment. Routine or procedural resolutions should be turned into Committee decisions, proposed by the Chairman in consultation with Member States.
In a brief summary of the Committee's rationalization process, he said that it had included the adoption of a two-track approach targeting the substantive and procedural aspects of disarmament. At the forty-sixth session, the Committee held a combined general debate on disarmament and
First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3090 13the Meeting (AM) 3 November 1997
international security agenda items, with the understanding that its reform should not in any way undermine the priority given to disarmament issues.
At the forty-eighth session, he added, the General Assembly adopted a thematic approach, and First Committee items were clustered into the following 10 broad topic areas: nuclear weapons; other weapons of mass destruction; conventional weapons; regional disarmament and security; confidence-building measures, including transparency in armaments; the disarmament aspects of outer space; disarmament machinery; other disarmament measures; international security; and related matters of disarmament and international security.
ARSENE MILLIM (Luxembourg) spoke on behalf of the European Union and the associated States of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Cyprus. Iceland and Liechtenstein also associated themselves with his remarks. He began by recommending that the two-day review of the Committee's rationalization of work conclude with a consensus resolution.
He said that Committee debates should allow for ongoing "pictures" of the evolution of States' positions, in order to promote alignment among their views. Debates could be better organized and more focused, and they could produce better results, in particular a set of texts that were "more manageable and user friendly". The current format centring around a general debate, followed by a thematic debate and an examination of draft texts, was not entirely satisfactory, because delegations generally repeated the same arguments on all three occasions.
The general debate remained an important opportunity for delegations to set out formally and fully their national positions. However, it would help in the drafting of resolutions if the views of all delegations were known as early as possible. Therefore, the first week of general debate could include meetings both during mornings and afternoons.
While the thematic debate was initially intended to promote more focused and interactive discussion, it was clear that the initiative had not succeeded, he said. Following the general debate, the Committee should proceed to the introduction of drafts grouped according to topic. The thematic debate should be merged with the examination of resolutions. Clustering the examination of drafts in that manner would provide an ample opportunity for the expansion of comments.
He said that the current agenda did not follow any logical pattern and was both difficult to manage and difficult to comprehend. Existing items could be reclassified in accordance with a simple, logical and thematic approach. For example, one item could bring together all the resolutions on nuclear-weapon-free zones, another on regional approaches to international security and another on small arms. Should such a rearrangement be adopted,
First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3090 13the Meeting (AM) 3 November 1997
the Committee would work its way through the agenda rather than resort to the complex manipulations of previous years.
The unjustified frequency of draft resolutions cluttered the agenda and weakened the focus, he said. Greater collective restraint was needed. An agreement might be sought to consider most agenda items only every two or three years, rather than every year. In the event of major developments on a particular issue, consideration would be given to re-entering the agenda item in the course of the year. He had circulated in the Committee a draft reorganization of the Committee's agenda.
HISAO YAMAGUCHI (Japan) said that, while there was good reason for engaging in a theme-structured framework, he had witnessed many empty seats last week and few speakers took the floor. If that was the kind of rationalization imposed on the Committee, why not simply reduce or eliminate the number of days reserved for such debate? he asked. Some delegations could argue for a more drastic approach, as the last speaker had done. As a small, concrete step, however, perhaps the time for structured debate could be eliminated or reduced.
NASTE CALOVSKI (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said that the Committee should consider resuming its sessions throughout the year, much like the Fifth Committee. With resumed Committee sessions, there would be no need for the United Nations Disarmament Commission. Furthermore, after completing discussions on a particular item, the Committee should take action on the respective resolutions or decisions on that subject and avoid lengthy preambular paragraphs. Also, it would be advisable to merge the First Committee with the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).
MARK MOHER (Canada), referring to the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", said that while the Committee might not be "broke", it certainly was "bent" and in need of reform. For one thing, it was not making focused and cost-effective use of its time and resources. Its agenda and work programme, therefore, should be very carefully considered. The Committee could accomplish in four weeks what it was taking five weeks to achieve. He had circulated in the Committee a paper outlining his reflections.
* *** *