DISARMAMENT COMMISSION CONCLUDES SESSION WITHOUT AGREEMENT ON ASSEMBLY SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT

28 April 1998

Press Release
DC/2606

DISARMAMENT COMMISSION CONCLUDES SESSION WITHOUT AGREEMENT ON ASSEMBLY SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT

19980428 Agrees to Continue Work on Conventional Arms Guidelines, Establishment of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones, at 1999 Session

The Disarmament Commission this morning concluded its 1998 session without reaching agreement on the objectives and agenda of a proposed fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. In accordance with its working methods, by which it considers individual items for three years, the Commission has thus concluded its work relating to the special session, which may now be considered by the Assembly.

Acting without a vote, the Commission today approved its draft annual report to the Assembly, including the reports of its three working groups. Those groups were considering the proposed special session, the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones and guidelines on conventional arms control, limitation and disarmament. Its work on the latter two items, currently in their second year of consideration, will conclude in 1999.

While many expressed concern that the Commission had been unable to produce a recommendation regarding the proposed special session, several speakers felt that its deliberations had laid a solid foundation for future endeavours. Commission Chairman Sergey Martynov (Belarus) said that great strides had been made in expanding areas of convergence, which augured well for further action on the item by the Assembly.

The Chairman of the working group on the special session, Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat (Indonesia), said that differences had persisted on such questions as a programme of action for the special session, strengthening the United Nations role in disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects. It was now up to Member States to decide whether the process of reconciling views should continue and, if so, through what mechanism.

The failure to agree on the objectives and agenda of the special session had brought the Commission into disrepute and had undermined the aim of strengthening the role of multilateralism in disarmament, the representative

Disarmament Commission - 1a - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

of Australia said. Similarly, the representative of Canada said the Commission could only succeed in its efforts if there was a collective willingness to consider new perspectives, rather than cling to immovable national positions.

The Chairman of the working group on nuclear-weapon-free zones, Miguel Aguirre de Carcer (Spain), said that fundamental issues had emerged during the group's long debate, giving rise to deep reflection on all aspects of the zones' creation. The discussions had illuminated problem areas, including the most controversial.

The Chairman of the working group on conventional arms control, Matia Mulumba Semakula Kiwanuka (Uganda), said the group had expanded the core of its work to enumerate practical, post-conflict disarmament measures for the consolidation of peace. It had also addressed the long-term needs for reconstruction and development of the affected societies. He expressed the hope that the guidelines would be completed in 1999.

Statements were also made by the representatives of China, Algeria, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Cuba, Iran and Colombia.

The dates for the Commission's next session will be decided at an organizational session to be held in December.

Commission Work Programme

The Disarmament Commission met this morning to conclude its 1998 session and approve its annual report of the General Assembly. That text includes a draft report of its Committee of the Whole, as well as reports of its working groups on nuclear-weapon-free zones, a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, and guidelines on conventional arms control, limitation and disarmament.

The draft report of the Committee of the Whole (document A/CN.10/19989/CRP.3) contains the Chairman's proposal for revitalizing, rationalizing and streamlining the Commission's work. It states that, as of the 1999 session, the Commission's agenda should be comprised of two items per year, including one on nuclear disarmament. The possibility of a third agenda item would be retained if there was consensus to adopt such an item while maintaining overall balance of the agenda.

The proposal also states that the complementarity of efforts between the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission in the consideration of substantive issues could be an asset for all those disarmament forums.

The report of the working group on nuclear-weapon-free zones (document A/CN.10/1998/CRP.4) is based on a wide range of working papers which well be forwarded to the 1999 substantive session of the Commission for further analysis. Annexed to the report is a working paper by the Chairman which highlights the successes of existing nuclear-weapon-free zones. It also defines the scope of the related agenda item, which is intended to assist in global efforts towards the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, particularly through the establishment and effective implementation of such nuclear-weapon-free zones. However, the purposes, principles and guidelines for such zones, as outlined in the report, should be regarded only as "generally accepted conditions" at this stage.

The text further states that such zones could be a crucial instrument in promoting the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The zones significantly reinforced and expanded on the obligations of non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) not to acquire nuclear weapons and to develop and use nuclear energy only under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. In addition, the zones might serve as a framework for international cooperation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in a region, so as to promote States parties' economic, scientific and technological development.

The initiative for the creation of such zones should come from the States in the region, the paper states. The zones should effectively prohibit the development or possession of any nuclear device for any purpose and should

Disarmament Commission - 3 - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

provide for effective verification measures. The nuclear-weapon States would be called upon to undertake obligations towards those zones, including to strictly respect their status and to enter into legally binding commitments not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against parties to them.

In a section outlining "the way ahead", the paper promotes the entry into force as soon as possible of all existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, and reviews regional initiatives aimed at their establishment. In the Middle East, for example, such a zone would greatly enhance regional and international peace and security. However, the prerequisites necessary for meaningful arms control discussions in that region were still missing. While the establishment of a zone in South Asia had been under consideration by the General Assembly for many years, the proposal was not unanimously supported by the States of the region. The five Central Asian States had advanced their goal in that regard, and the international community was considering Mongolia's initiative for the establishment of a single-State nuclear-weapon- free zone.

The report of the working group on a proposed fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament (document A/CN.10/1998/CRP.5) states that it did not prove possible to reach consensus on the objectives and agenda of the special session. However, it considered that the Chairman's paper represented an earnest and constructive attempt to bridge the gap in the positions on those questions and to reach a consensus. It is annexed to the report for possible consideration by the General Assembly when it takes up the issue.

The Chairman's paper identifies objectives for a fourth special session. Those included setting the future course of action in order to strengthen international peace and security; assessing the implementation of the Final Document of the first special session on disarmament; and establishing an agreed programme of action in the disarmament sphere that would strengthen the central role of the United Nations and promote multilateralism in disarmament.

By that paper, the session's agenda should include implementation of the Final Document of the first special session; developments in the international situation, including global, regional and subregional trends; nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation; other weapons of mass destruction; conventional weapons issues; regional disarmament; and confidence- and security-building measures and transparency. Questions pertaining to the universality of existing agreements, verification and compliance, and the relationship between disarmament and development were among the other issues to be included.

The report of the working group on guidelines on conventional arms control, limitation and disarmament summarizes the group's exchange of views and elaborates the scope and framework for future guidelines. The group

Disarmament Commission - 4 - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

decided to focus its work on two elements of the Chairman's paper of 1997: practical disarmament measures; and other conventional arms control, limitation and disarmament measures. The paper enjoyed support as a contribution to the elaboration of the guidelines, although some of its elements required further elaboration and refinement.

The Chairman's paper, annexed to the group's report, states that the guidelines, which are neither mandatory nor prescriptive and are to be adopted by consensus, should emphasize the consolidation of peace in post-conflict situations while promoting peace and stability generally. They could draw on the relevant lessons learned by the United Nations and other relevant regional and international organizations in the consolidation of peace. They should emphasize the importance of a coordinated approach between practical disarmament measures and the broader economic, political, social and humanitarian aspects of post-conflict rehabilitation, which fall outside the competence of the Disarmament Commission.

Also according to the paper, guidelines should encompass practical disarmament measures relevant to a conflict about to be resolved or recently ended, and aim at preventing its re-emergence. Such measures could include arms collection and destruction, demining and demobilization. They should also encompass other conventional arms control, limitation and disarmament measures, such as arms control and confidence-building measures, transparency in armaments and combating the illicit arms trade, particularly with respect to small arms and light weapons.

The working group also developed a list of further measures which might be undertaken. They include arms collection, control, disposal and destruction, especially of small arms and light weapons; demining; demobilization; reintegration of former combatants; conversion of military facilities for civilian use in post-conflict situations; confidence-building in post-conflict situations; and regional and international cooperation and transparency. Other measures include encouraging the participation of all States in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms; the establishment of voluntary, global and non-discriminatory codes of conduct for conventional arms transfers; the development of national arms laws and regulations; and border controls.

Statements

MIGUEL AGUIRRE DE CARCER (Spain), the Chairman of the working group on nuclear-weapon-free zones, said that fundamental issues had emerged during the group's long debate, giving rise to deep reflection on all aspects of the zones' creation. The discussions had illuminated problem areas, including the most controversial.

Disarmament Commission - 5 - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

Documents by many delegations and a revised Chairman's paper had formed the basis for the group's work, he said. It attempted to incorporate all the new elements of the session, especially those on which some consensus had emerged. However, some differences persisted with respect to the perspectives elaborated in "the way ahead" section of the paper. Next year, the Commission should try to reach agreement from the beginning on the method for considering those issues.

SUDJADNAN PARNOHADININGRAT (Indonesia), Chairman of the working group on the fourth special session, said the item on the special session in its third years on the Commission's agenda. The aim was to achieve consensus on the objectives and agenda of the special session. Such an outcome would have led to decisions by the General Assembly on the exact dates for the special session and on organizational matters relating to it.

"There is some distance to go before we achieve consensus", he went on to say. Differences persisted on such questions as the need to reaffirm the principles and priorities of the Final Document of the first special session on disarmament; on the proposal to review implementation of that Final Document and to agree on a programme of action for the fourth special session; and on strengthening of the role of the United Nations and of multilateralism in the field of disarmament, as well as on non-proliferation in all its aspects.

The working group did not succeed in bridging those differences, he said. However, that process had resulted in greater appreciation of the various interests and approaches, ideas and concepts, which undoubtedly enriched the deliberations and laid a solid foundation for future endeavours. It was now up to Member States to decide whether that process of reconciling views should continue and, if so, through what mechanism. The General Assembly had decided to include an item on convening the fourth special session in the provisional agenda of its fifty-third session. The process of working towards consensus should continue.

The group had benefited from the expertise of members of delegations who had participated in the deliberations for the entire three-year period, he said. The building up of an institutional memory was critical to the ability to move forward on the matter.

MATIA MULUMBA SEMAKULA KIWANUKA (Uganda), Chairman of the working group on conventional arms control, limitation and disarmament, said that the effectiveness of the Commission could be measured by the political process it generated. The bulk of what was accomplished by the working group had been in expanding the core of its work to enumerate practical, post-conflict disarmament measures for the consolidation of peace. The group spent most of its time reviewing that issue and progress was made on defining and clarifying

Disarmament Commission - 6 - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

those measures. Their further refinement and elaboration would be necessary next year.

Time was too short to hold a discussion on the other expanded part of the Chairman's paper on guidelines for other arms control, limitation and disarmament measures, he said. That would need to be thoroughly reviewed next year.

He said the group had returned repeatedly to consider the scope of the guidelines -- namely, what disarmament and arms control measures would consolidate peace in a post-conflict situation to meet the needs of countries that had experienced war, as well as the long-term needs of reconstruction and development of the affected society and economy. It was hoped that the guidelines would be completed in 1999 and would serve as a useful checklist to give direction to the efforts of countries emerging from conflict, as well as to the regional and international governmental and non-governmental agencies and organizations which supported the peace and development processes.

SERGEY MARTYNOV (Belarus), Commission Chairman, then read out a number of technical changes to the Commission's draft report, including reports of the working groups. The Commission then approved the draft report, as orally amended, without a vote.

SUE ROBERTSON (Australia) said the results of the Commission's current session had been mixed and disappointing. Australia appreciated the efforts of the Chairman of the working group on the fourth special session on disarmament, who made strenuous efforts to accommodate different views. Australia had never been one of those countries calling for a fourth session on disarmament. However, the General Assembly had agreed unanimously last year that one could be held. A small number of delegation blocked the Chairman's efforts to find consensus on the objectives and agenda of the special session.

She said that some delegations tried to limit the content and outcome of the special session even before it took place. For three years, the Commission heard arguments that should have been reserved for the special session itself. The session would have given due and updated attention to nuclear disarmament. Given the developments over the past 20 years, it would also have new things to say on the other weapons of mass destruction and on conventional weapons. Obsessive and rigid adherence to the Final Document of the first special session or to particular national positions at this stage of the process was largely to blame for the failure to reach a consensus on the special session.

The Final Document of the first special session and the final act of the Congress of Vienna were valuable and historic documents, but those were products of their time, she said. Time had revealed errors and inadequacies

Disarmament Commission - 7 - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

of both commission and omission. Many of the conclusions of the first special session remained valid today. Some parts of it were timeless; some, however, were sadly dated. It did the cause of global arms control no service to invest that 20-year-old document with the status of immutable holy writ.

She said the failure to agree on the objectives and agenda of the fourth special session had brought the Commission into disrepute. It had also ridiculed the objective of those delegations which sought to strengthen the role of multilateralism in disarmament. The key message from this year's session was that the task of reform and renewal of the Disarmament Commission must go on if its credibility and viability were to be preserved.

LI CHANGHE (China) said that although this was the last year for the Commission's consideration of a fourth special session, no agreement has been reached. That was a matter of regret, indicating deep differences on a series of fundamental issues in the international disarmament sphere. Through in- depth discussions, however, the parties had deepened their understanding of each other's thinking and ideas; the three years of work had not accomplished nothing. Despite the difficulty in reaching consensus on the strategic disarmament issues to be included in a fourth special session, it was hoped that such reflection and exploration would continue, leading to progress through joint efforts.

The two other items, which were in their second year of deliberations, had built on past progress and laid the groundwork for their future consideration, he said. They had therefore attracted the attention of more delegations, which added to the depth of the discussions on those issues. Progress had been made, paving the way for completion of their consideration next year.

MICHAEL J. SNELL (Canada) expressed the hope that the efforts on the two remaining agenda items for next year would bear fruit. The 22 April paper of the Chairman of the working group on the special session had the best potential to attract consensus. Canada had been prepared to join such consensus, although the text was not perfect and did not perfectly reflect Canada's national views. However, it fell within the realm of the acceptable and did not jeopardize the position of any delegation. That opportunity, regrettably, had been lost.

The Commission's efforts could only succeed to the extent that there existed a collective willingness to consider new perspectives, rather than cling to immovable national positions, he said. The results of the current session strengthened his belief that the disarmament machinery was in need of reform, which should not be put off indefinitely.

ABDELKADER MESDOUA (Algeria) said that while consultations on the special session had not matched his hopes, he continued to believe that the

Disarmament Commission - 8 - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

Commission served to deepen understanding on very delicate and complex matters. Some differences of opinion were inevitable.

Through intensive discussions, however, the three working groups had made progress by deepening the consideration of their respective items, he said. The paper submitted by the Chairman of the working group on nuclear- weapon-free zones would promote a positive conclusion on that item next year. The contribution by the Chairman of the working group on conventional arms guidelines was also welcome. It was regrettable that no agreement had been reached on the convening of a fourth special session, despite all the efforts made by the Chairman of that working group.

MOTAZ M. ZAHRAN (Egypt) said that consideration of the item on nuclear- weapon-free zones must contain a forward-looking review of the situation in regions where interest for the initiative existed. The relevant working group should take that objective into consideration at the next session of the Commission.

It was regrettable that the working group on the fourth special session had been unable to reach consensus on the session's agenda or objectives. It was hoped that further efforts would be made to that end in other forums. The Chairman's papers must be reflected in the work of forthcoming sessions, as well as written submissions by States.

D.B. VENKATESH VARMA (India) said that satisfaction could be drawn from the results of the consideration of nuclear-weapon-free zones and conventional weapons guidelines. Greater understanding of the concepts involved and the positions of Member States had emerged, providing a useful basis on which the Commission could carry forward its work on those items next year.

The deliberations on a fourth special session had benefited from the resolution adopted without a vote by the General Assembly last December. As a result, there had been widespread expectation that the spirit of the Commission's deliberations would match the spirit of accommodation that led to adoption of that resolution. It was therefore disappointing that it had not been possible, despite arduous efforts, to reach consensus on the special session's objectives and agenda.

India remained committed to convening that session on the basis of agreed objectives and agenda, he said. The call for the session by the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Cairo in 1994 was reiterated in other Non-Aligned summits and declarations. India's approach aimed at bridging the gap in the positions of Member States. A fourth special session represented the best way to take advantage of positive changes in the post-cold war international climate, in order to draw from the appropriate lessons of the past and build on the achievements of the first special session on disarmament.

Disarmament Commission - 9 - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

The working group's deliberations had revealed differences and disagreements regarding the Final Document of the first special session. Indeed, some Member States had sought to use the deliberations to question the validity of that document, which remained the only consensus document of the international community on disarmament. India found it difficult to agree with that approach and would reaffirm the validity of the first special session.

A fourth special session would review implementation of the programme of action of the first such session, especially on the grave issue of nuclear disarmament, he said. That would enable the international community to decide on specific steps towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. While consensus remained elusive, the international community must, for the time being, take stock of the situation and find ways to enable further consideration of the proposal for the holding of the special session.

ABDUL BASIT (Pakistan) said his country fully subscribed to the goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and hoped that the Commission would finalize its work on the establishment of nuclear-weapons-free zones. Pakistan regretted the Commission's failure to reach consensus on the convening of the fourth special session on disarmament; such a session was of the utmost importance, and an appropriate way should be found to convene it soon. His country would continue to play a constructive and active role in disarmament.

BENITEZ VERSOV (Cuba) said Cuba would continue to support efforts to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones. The Commission's failure to reach a consensus on the convening of the fourth special session on disarmament was regrettable. The guidelines on conventional arms had required painstaking work in 1998 and considerable differences remained in the positions of delegations. It was hoped that the General Assembly would pick up from the work of the Disarmament Commission.

GHOLAMHOSSEIN DEHGHANI (Iran) said the Commission could successfully fulfil its mission if deliberations were conducted in a cooperative and harmonious manner and if all sides showed flexibility. Consensus had eluded the Commission on the convening of the fourth special session on disarmament because some States which relied on nuclear weapons for their security were not supportive. Clear and concrete recommendations were needed on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones.

JUAN CARLOS LONDONO (Colombia) said there was a need for delegations to reconcile the different positions they had taken over a number of items discussed. The will existed to work to achieve that consensus. It was important to use that will to reach agreement on contentious issues.

Disarmament Commission - 10 - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

Mr. MARTYNOV (Belarus), Commission Chairman, said the issues before the Commission at the current session were important and bore directly on disarmament and security, as well as on the conceptual approaches to attaining those goals. The deliberations on nuclear-weapon-free zones and for guidelines on conventional disarmament built up and enlarged some fundamental areas of understanding -- as they should during the second year of their consideration.

Although full and total agreement concerning the convening of the fourth special session had escaped the Commission, it had made "big strides" in expanding areas of convergence of minds, he said. That augured well for its possible consideration by the General Assembly.

With the approach to the new millennium, the paradigm of international relations, especially in areas of disarmament and security, was changing, he said. It was therefore natural that the community of nations needed time to ascertain how best to approach and achieve those overridingly important goals. It was heartening that, in the course of the session, all delegations had confirmed the continued unique role played by the Commission as the only universal membership body for in-depth consideration of disarmament issues.

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 Assembly last year reaffirmed the Commission's role as the specialized, deliberative body within the United Nations multilateral machinery that allows for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations. Thus, the Commission prepares an issue, but does not negotiate it. Items considered by the Commission subsequently tend to turn up on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament.

The Commission, which resulted from a decision of the first special session on disarmament in 1978, has developed a number of confidence- and security-building measures, including the 1993 United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. It has also promoted guidelines and recommendations regarding objective information on military matters and regional approaches.

Officers

The officers of the Commission are Sergey Martynov (Belarus), Chairman; Abdelkader Mesdoua (Algeria), Leslie Mbangambi Gumbi (South Africa), Mehdi

Disarmament Commission - 11 - Press Release DC/2606 223rd Meeting (AM) 28 April 1998

Danesh-Yazdi (Iran), Khalil Abou-Hadid (Syria), and Arsene H. Millim (Luxembourg), Vice-Chairmen; and Vice Skacic (Croatia), Rapporteur.

The Chairmen of the Commission's working groups were Miguel Aguirre de Carcer (Spain), on nuclear-weapon-free zones; Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat (Indonesia), on the fourth special session; and Matia Mulumba Semakula Kiwanuka (Uganda), on conventional arms control.

* *** *