DISARMAMENT COMMISSION MEETS TO REVIEW MEMBERS RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY DRAFT MEDIUM-TERM PLAN FOR DISARMAMENT FOR 2002-2005
Press Release
DC/2639
DISARMAMENT COMMISSION MEETS TO REVIEW MEMBERS RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY DRAFT MEDIUM-TERM PLAN FOR DISARMAMENT FOR 2002-2005
19990429 The Disarmament Commission Committee of the Whole met this morning to review, for the first time ever, the response of its members to the preliminary draft medium-term plan for disarmament for the period 2002 to 2005, which had been introduced last week by the Assistant Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala.In his introduction, Mr. Dhanapala described the medium-term plan as the principal policy directive of the United Nations. It served as a framework for the formulation of the biennial programme budgets within the period covered by the plan. The plan translated legislative mandates into programmes and subprogrammes, and was derived from existing mandates set by the United Nations Charter and the General Assembly in the field of arms limitation and disarmament, including its special sessions on disarmament.
The general orientation of the disarmament programme as outlined in the draft plan, takes into account two major areas in the field of disarmament: weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, including issues of landmines, small arms, light weapons and practical disarmament measures. The programme's overall strategy would facilitate the efforts of the international community to address the current and future challenges derived from those two areas.
Within that framework, the programme would continue to promote, strengthen and consolidate multilateral principles and norms for disarmament, with emphasis on nuclear disarmament. It would address issues of small arms, light weapons and landmines, as well as practical disarmament measures, such as weapons collection programmes. Also, it would expand its outreach activities, and promote regional approaches to disarmament and security through the revitalized regional centres for peace and disarmament.
The disarmament programme's objectives would be pursued through its five subprogrammes, namely: multilateral negotiations on arms limitation and disarmament; weapons of mass destruction; conventional arms (including practical disarmament measures); monitoring, database and information; and regional disarmament.
The Disarmament Commission will meet again at 10 a.m. on Friday, 30 April, to conclude its substantive session.
Statements
MARIA ANGELICA ARCE de JEANNET (Mexico) reiterated the high priority her delegation had attached to the activities of the United Nations in disarmament. The draft medium-term plan adequately reflected the mandates given by Member States on the various subjects within the disarmament field. The new structure, divided into subprogrammes, provided greater detail about the various activities to be undertaken by the Organization within the period covered.
Nevertheless, her delegation believed that mandates relating to nuclear weapons should be presented in a clearer fashion, in particular, the requests made by Member States of the Secretary-General for the implementation of certain activities, such as the preparation of reports and the provision of support for negotiations underway on items related to nuclear weapons.
GUNTHER SEIBERT (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that his initial comments should not be taken as an endorsement of the plan, which had addressed two major areas in disarmament: weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons. The Union remained committed to disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as of the delivery systems. Successful pursuit of those goals required continued efforts to strengthen existing non- proliferation regimes, particularly by promoting universal adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
The plan might benefit from greater emphasis on nuclear non- proliferation, he said. The Union attached high priority to the implementation and universality of the NPT, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, and to their verification to the letter. It also attached high priority to the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and to the early commencement of negotiations of a fissile material cut-off treaty. The plan should also address conventional weapons, with a particular emphasis on anti-personnel landmines, small arms, light weapons and practical disarmament measures -- which undermined sustainable development, as well as international peace and security. The Union, for its part, had adopted far-reaching initiatives in that field.
MANICKAM ALDYIAN (India) said the document had been sent to his capital for examination, and detailed observations would come later. The guiding principle of the medium-term plan should be to distil the elements that could serve to anchor a mandate justifying actions. The plan should be clearer in reaffirming that Member States must be satisfied that the Secretariat will do
Disarmament Commission - 3 - Press Release DC/2639 Committee of the Whole 29 April 1999
only what intergovernmental bodies have mandated. The plan should contain a more elaborate statement defining nuclear disarmament as the highest priority. He asked about a reference to legislation intended to ensure peace and security.
A medium-term plan must focus on universal acceptance of its terms, he said, and regional agreement was a mandate for global security. The plan should clarify the role of the United Nations in implementing agreements, as well as the meaning of sustainable disarmament.
JOHN KING (United States) said he could not provide a formal endorsement of the medium-term plan, since his Government had only initially reviewed it. His Government's first response was in the form of questions. The duties outlined for regional centres represented an ambitious and potentially useful programme, but what if voluntary funding was not received? Also, what did enhancement of the reference library in Geneva mean, since it had been incorporated into the overall Palais library? he asked. How would the library function and how would it be enhanced and accessed? Would it be open to experts only or to the general public? What kind of data base would be developed and maintained for strengthening peace and security? How costly would it be?
Finally, what were the next steps towards finalizing the medium-term plan? he asked. How would programmes be costed and budgeted, and would there be another opportunity for review?
ABDUL BASIT (Pakistan) said it was heartening that the Disarmament Commission had been asked to comment on the medium-term plan rather than debating it, since the right forum for that debate was the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) and not the Disarmament Commission. The medium-term plan had been referred to his capital and no feedback had been received, but preliminary comments could be made.
As the representatives of Mexico and India had stated, the emphasis on nuclear disarmament should be clearly reflected in the medium-term plan, he said. The present language had not made that clear enough. Putting nuclear weapons in the same category as weapons of mass destruction diluted their importance. The international community had already concluded multilateral agreements on biological and chemical weapons and the only weapon of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, should be given greater emphasis. Also, the Secretariat should not transgress its mandate; promotion of universal adherence and implementation of norms were not part of its mandate, nor was promoting universal adherence to discriminatory bilateral and multilateral agreements.
After the nuclear testing by India and Pakistan, the Secretary-General had rightly stressed the need for multilateral norms in both delivery and
Disarmament Commission - 4 - Press Release DC/2639 Committee of the Whole 29 April 1999
missile defense, he said. The medium-term plan should avoid specific references to treaties, such as the Ottawa Convention, where several countries were not "on board". Overall, the plan should focus on nuclear disarmament. In that regard, the Secretariat's disarmament mandate had already been defined by the General Assembly. The medium-term plan should be presented to the First Committee, which was the right forum for endorsement.
RODOLFO ELISEO BENITEZ RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) was awaiting final instructions from his capital, but preliminarily would highlight the importance of the plan and the fact that delegations had been consulted before its submission. The Secretariat should enable States to continue to submit their views on that draft document, perhaps through its consideration at a resumed session of the First Committee.
He said the draft had not clearly defined the disarmament priorities, which the international community had adopted by consensus at the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. It was extremely important to describe nuclear disarmament as the highest priority on the disarmament agenda. Moreover, the proposal should refer to the First Committee and the Disarmament Commission by name, and not only that of the Conference on Disarmament. Likewise, the draft should avoid specific mention of specific disarmament treaties such as the Ottawa Convention, which had not received the consensus support of all delegations. That singling out had not been done with other disarmament treaties already in force.
He noted the mention in the draft of the promotion of universal acceptance of multilateral agreements. In that respect, he wondered whether that meant that the Secretariat would be involved in promoting the universality of treaties that were discriminatory and selective. Since it clearly would not, that type of wording should be changed before adoption of the final plan. Throughout the draft, the issue of conventional weapons was entirely confined to questions relating to small arms and light weapons, such as anti-personnel landmines. Were not sophisticated conventional weapons of an offensive nature of equal importance? Those weapons also deserved special attention by the Secretariat and should be included in the plan.
JAYANTHA DHANAPALA, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, appreciated the comments of delegations, which would be incorporated into future revisions of the plan. The current departure from previous practice was intended to enhance the consultative process with Member States in order to ensure that the medium-term plan more accurately reflected the wishes of Member States. He had not intended to supplant the earlier process, but had simply begun the consultation process at an earlier stage than usual. After that preliminary exchange of views, he would go "back to the drafting board" and come up with a fresh revision.
Disarmament Commission - 5 - Press Release DC/2639 Committee of the Whole 29 April 1999
Nuclear disarmament was mentioned as a priority, which in fact it was, he said. If further strengthening of the language was necessary, that would certainly be considered. Concerning a question about the Geneva library, it had not been incorporated into the general library, but functioned as a specialized library. The Department of Disarmament Affairs also had a widely available electronic database and website on various disarmament issues. He intended to enhance the database on regional disarmament aspects, within existing resources, as part of the overall database.
IOURI G. ORLOV (Russian Federation) said he associated himself with the view expressed by other delegations that the Disarmament Commission might not be the proper forum for detailed study of the plan because delegations did not have the relevant instructions, and had not been able to sufficiently study the paper in order to be able to make substantive comments. It was extremely important, however, to preserve a balance between the different guidelines of the disarmament process. His Government would make further comments on the plan following careful study.
* *** *