DISARMAMENT COMMISSION ADOPTS GUIDELINES ON NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONES, CONVENTIONAL ARMS, AS IT CONCLUDES THREE-WEEK SESSION
Press Release
DC/2641*
DISARMAMENT COMMISSION ADOPTS GUIDELINES ON NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONES, CONVENTIONAL ARMS, AS IT CONCLUDES THREE-WEEK SESSION
19990430 Fails to Reach Consensus on Objectives, Agenda For Fourth Special Session of General Assembly on DisarmamentThe Disarmament Commission concluded its long-term consideration of three disarmament issues on Friday evening by reaching agreement on guidelines for two of them: the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones; and conventional arms control. The Commission could not reach consensus, however, on the objectives and agenda for a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.
According to the guidelines adopted by the Commission, developed by its first working group, the initiative to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone should emanate exclusively from States within the region concerned and be pursued by all the States of that region. Further, any such proposal should be considered only after consensus on the objective has been achieved in broad consultations within the States of the region concerned. In addition, the nuclear-weapon States, as well as any States with territory or internationally responsible for territories within the zone, should be consulted during the negotiations. Finally, a zone must conform with international law, and its status should be respected by all States parties to the treaty establishing it, including the nuclear-weapon States.
The conventional arms control guidelines, which are designed for consolidating peace in post-conflict situations, state that the excessive accumulation of small arms and light weapons can best be averted by a combination of reduction and prevention measures. They cover: practical disarmament measures in post-conflict situations; confidence-building in post-conflict situations; regional and international financial and technical assistance; other conventional arms control/limitation and disarmament measures; and the role of the United Nations.
__________ * Press Release DC/2939 of 29 April 1999 should have been DC/2940.
Disarmament Commission - 1a - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
Many of the 28 speakers addressing the closing meeting said the two consensus texts, which are contained in the Commission's draft annual report to the Assembly, reaffirmed their belief in the value of the Commission as a specialized deliberative forum capable of identifying disarmament- and security-related principles and guidelines. When measured against its inability to reach consensus in past years, speakers said, the successful conclusion of two disarmament items was remarkable. Also at the current session, the first positive effects of reforming the Commission had been felt, which had allowed for earlier and more careful preparation of its work.
The guidelines for establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones were described by several speakers as a significant achievement for the international community. The text had thoroughly elaborated the core principle that arrangements should be arrived at freely among States and draw important conclusions from past experience. The guidelines would provide further impetus to ongoing disarmament efforts by all States searching for tools to promote nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and regional security.
As for the conventional arms control guidelines, many speakers said they were a major step forward in an area that directly affected the security and stability of States. The text represented a substantial conceptual contribution to consolidating peace in post-conflict situations and combating the excessive and destabilizing accumulation of weapons, particularly small arms and light weapons. It was a tool upon which the international community could draw to prevent the emergence and re-emergence of conflicts.
Delegations disagreed about the reasons for the Commission's failure to reach consensus on the essential components of a fourth special session on disarmament. The representative of India said agreement had not been reached because some States refused to allow the critical issue of the retention of nuclear weapons to be brought to the table. Even while the current session of the Commission was taking place, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had recently stated that its security and the preservation of peace depended on nuclear weapons, he said.
The United States representative said her country had accepted the notion of another special session because a forward-looking meeting to elaborate an agenda for multilateral disarmament and arms control in the post-cold-war world was useful, assuming that States displayed a willingness to compromise and limit their aspirations to the attainable. Unfortunately, such a willingness had not emerged in spite of four years of painstaking work.
Given the sincere commitment expressed by many delegations to convene a fourth special session, some speakers suggested the impasse be resolved at the next session of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security). The draft document produced by the Commission was a valid basis for consensus, they said.
Disarmament Commission - 1b - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
In closing remarks, the Chairman of the Commission, Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt, expressed his regret at the failure to reach consensus on the fourth special session. At the same time, the successful formulation of conventional arms control guidelines was proof that hard work and serious effort, combined with political will, could realize objectives. The Commission must not be used to achieve national interests at the expense of common goals. Indeed, its continuation as a deliberative body required a rethinking of the way in which national interests could be preserved in the wider context of collective interests.
The reports of the working groups were introduced by the three chairmen: Emilio Izquierdo (Ecuador); Arizal Effendi (Indonesia); and Michael Hoey (Ireland). The Rapporteur, Gaile Ann Ramoutar (Trinidad and Tobago), introduced the Commission's draft report.
Prior to convening the plenary session for the formal introduction and adoption of reports, the Commission met briefly as the Committee of the Whole to finalize the texts.
Statements were also made by the representatives of Mexico, Germany (on behalf of the European Union), United Kingdom, Iran, Australia, France, Canada, Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Israel, Pakistan, Belarus, Spain, China, South Africa, Tunisia, Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Russian Federation and Poland.
The dates and topics for the Commission's next session will be decided at an organizational meeting to be held in December.
Commission Work Programme
The Disarmament Commission met this afternoon to conclude its 1999 session and approve its annual report to the General Assembly. The draft report includes the 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. Prior to convening a plenary session, the Commission's Committee of the Whole was to meet meet to finalize its consideration of those reports.
The report of working group I on nuclear-weapon-free zones (document A/CN.10/1999/CRP.4) notes that recent developments in international relations have led to increased efforts to consolidate existing nuclear-weapon-free zones and to establish new ones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. Such zones have ceased to be exceptional in the global strategic environment. To date, 107 States have signed or become parties to treaties establishing existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, and with the addition of the demilitarized Antarctica, those zones now cover more than 50 per cent of the earth's land mass.
The report defines nuclear-weapon-free zones as an important disarmament tool contributing to the primary objective of strengthening regional peace and security and, by extension, international peace and security. The zones considerably strengthen and increase the nuclear non-proliferation obligations of non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons and to develop and use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes. The zones are a useful complement to the international regime for the prohibition of nuclear-weapon- test explosions or any other nuclear explosion.
According to the report, the Commission's principles and guidelines should be regarded only as a non-exhaustive list of generally accepted observations in the current stage of the development of nuclear-weapon-free zones. They are based on current practices and available experiences, bearing in mind that the process of establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones should allow for the harmonious implementation of each of these principles and guidelines.
Among the principles and guidelines outlined in the report, the initiative to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone should emanate exclusively from States within the region concerned and be pursued by all the States of that region. In cases where consensus exists in a given region, efforts exerted by the States of the region should be supported by the international community. Assistance should be provided as appropriate including through the essential role of the United Nations to the States of the region concerned in their efforts to establish such a zone.
Disarmament Commission - 3 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
The text of the report also asserts that the status of such a zone should be respected by all States parties to the treaty establishing it, as well as by States outside the region, including all States whose cooperation and support are essential for the maximum effectiveness of such a zone, namely the nuclear-weapon States and, if there are any, States with territory or which are internationally responsible for territories situated within the zone concerned.
The report further states that the nuclear-weapon States should be consulted during the negotiations of each treaty and its relevant protocol(s) establishing such a zone, in order to facilitate their adherence to the treaty and its protocols. Any States with territory or internationally responsible for territories within the zone concerned should also be consulted during the negotiations of each treaty and its relevant protocol(s). Arrangements relating to a nuclear-weapon-free zone should conform with the principles and rules of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Also according to the principles and guidelines laid out in the report, a nuclear-weapon-free zone should provide for the effective prohibition of the development, manufacturing, control, possession, testing, stationing or transporting by the States parties to the treaty of any type of nuclear explosive device for any purpose, and should stipulate that States parties to the treaty not permit the stationing of any nuclear explosive devices by any other State within the zone.
Nuclear-weapon States, for their part, should assume in full their obligations vis-à-vis nuclear-weapon-free zones upon signing and ratifying relevant protocols, including strict compliance with the statute of the nuclear-weapon-free zone, and, through the signing of relevant protocols, enter into binding legal commitments not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the countries that belong to the nuclear-weapon-free zone. A zone should not prevent the use of nuclear science and technology for peaceful purposes and could also promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy in the zone, in support of the socio-economic, scientific and technological development of the States parties.
The report points the way ahead by urging all existing nuclear-weapon- free zone treaties to come into force as soon as possible, and for all relevant States to complete the process of signature and ratification of the treaties and the protocols as soon as possible. The zones' establishment, especially in regions where there exists a consensus on the objective, such as in the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as the development of zones free from weapons of mass destruction, should be encouraged as a matter of priority, and vigorous efforts should be made to secure cooperation and coordination among the States parties and signatories to such treaties in order to promote their common objectives.
Disarmament Commission - 4 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
Any State from a concerned region has the right to propose the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in its region, the report declares. Any proposal for establishing such a zone should be considered only after consensus on the objective has been achieved in broad consultations within the States of the region concerned. Political relations and cooperation among the States parties and signatories to the existing zones could be expanded in pursuit of the objective of freeing the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas from nuclear weapons in the context of the ultimate elimination of those weapons.
Also according to the report, the international community should promote the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones around the globe, in an effort to achieve the ultimate goal of freeing the entire world from all nuclear weapons, as well as all weapons of mass destruction, and, more broadly speaking, of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
The report of the second working group on a proposed special session of the General Assembly on disarmament (document A/CN.10/ 1999/CRP.5) notes the wide range of working papers submitted by delegations for consideration of that item. A Chairman's paper, formatted much like a General Assembly resolution, recalls the decision of the General Assembly at its fifty-third session to convene, subject to the emergence of consensus on its objectives and agenda, the fourth special session and, subject to the outcome of the deliberations at the 1998 substantive session of the Disarmament Commission, to set an exact date for and to decide on organizational matters relating to the convening of the session.
Seeking to provide for a comprehensive, thorough review at the fourth special session, as well as an assessment of all issues in the field of disarmament and international security, including those of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons, non-proliferation in all its aspects and disarmament machinery, the 1999 session of the Disarmament Commission has identified the following objectives, among others, for the special session.
The special session should seize the opportunities of the present, preserving and building upon past achievements in the field of disarmament and setting the future course of action in order to strengthen international peace and security. It should assess implementation of the programme of action of the Final Document of the first special session devoted to disarmament, review the international situation in the context of post-cold war changes, and identify new challenges and ways to address them. The session should also set principles, guidelines and priorities for future disarmament efforts, and establish an agreed, future-oriented programme of action that would primarily strengthen the central role of the United Nations and promote multilateralism in the field of disarmament.
Disarmament Commission - 5 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
Among the agenda items for the special session are nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects, other weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons issues. Regional disarmament, confidence - and security-building measures and transparency, and questions pertaining to the universality of existing agreements should also be considered. The agenda should also address verification and compliance issues, as well as the relationship between disarmament and development, the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and general and complete disarmament, and an agreed programme of action should be formulated.
In the report of the third working group on conventional arms control guidelines (document A/CN.10/1999/CRP.6), the Commission finds that the excessive accumulation of small arms and light weapons can best be averted by a combination of reduction and prevention measures. The reduction measures involve the speedy removal of quantities of surplus weapons through their collection and/or destruction. The objective of the prevention measures should be to scale down over time the numbers of small arms and light weapons to a level that corresponds to a country's legitimate self-defence and security interests, which it defines.
According to the report, the guidelines are primarily applicable for the consolidation of peace in post-conflict situations, and should be applied on a voluntary and consent basis. In their implementation, the root causes of conflict and the specific conditions and characteristics of the region concerned -- such as political, commercial, socio-economic, ethnic, cultural and ideological factors -- should be taken into account. Another principle warns that the guidelines should not be used to interfere in the internal affairs of other States.
In formulating and implementing practical disarmament measures for the consolidation of peace in regions that have suffered from conflicts, States should fully respect the principles of the United Nations Charter, and the peace agreements freely arrived at, thereby providing the best guarantee for the consolidation of peace in post-conflict situations. States should also adhere to the principles contained in the guidelines for international arms transfers, adopted in 1996, guidelines and recommendations for regional approaches to disarmament in the context of global security, adopted in 1993 and guidelines for the study on conventional disarmament, adopted in 1982.
According to the report, the guidelines have been organized into the following categories: practical disarmament measures in post-conflict situations; confidence-building in post-conflict situations; regional and international financial and technical assistance; other conventional arms control/limitation and disarmament measures; and the role of the United Nations.
Disarmament Commission - 6 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
Under practical disarmament measures in post-conflict situations, the guidelines address the collection, control, disposal and destruction of arms, especially small arms and light weapons and conversion of military facilities. Those measures require, as a prerequisite, an early and accurate baseline inventory and periodic reassessment of the arms in the possession of the parties to a peace agreement. Then, following the collection, control and secure storage of arms, States must determine which arms are surplus to their legitimate defence requirements.
The guidelines for practical disarmament measures also address the question of demining and other mine actions, asserting that the cessation of minelaying should be an integral part of ceasefire and peace agreements. Any peace agreement should also provide advance planning for integration of former combatants, with consideration given to their training and education. An effective outcome in that regard requires an early and accurate assessment of the combatants to be separated, assembled and demobilized. To build confidence in post-conflict situations, consideration should be given to combined/integrated monitoring, observation and control, and to transparency and verification.
Regional and international technical financial assistance in rebuilding infrastructure, and implementing practical disarmament measures, among others, should include the early involvement of international financial institutions, according to the guidelines. That assistance should also include assistance for national and local measures for collection and disposal of arms, the demobilization of combatants, and conversion of military facilities to civilian use. Financial and technical assistance for mine clearance and mine victims should also be provided, as well as technological assistance to mine- infested countries.
Regional and international financial and technical assistance should also be aimed at the reintegration of combatants, including their training and creation of employment opportunities. Assistance for public education awareness programmes would promote peace and build resistance to the unlawful uses of small arms.
Concerning national measures, the report finds that both arms supplier States and recipient States should ensure that the quantity and level of sophistication of their arms are commensurate with their legitimate defence and security requirements, and that they do not contribute to instability and conflict in their regions or in other countries and regions or to illicit trafficking in arms. States should have in place and enforce regulations on arms exports, imports, transit, re-export and diversion.
Also according to the report, States should formulate, among other measures, national legislation and licensing requirements that define the conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private
Disarmament Commission - 7 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
persons. In particular, the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes should be considered, as well as the establishment of national registries of dealers, manufacturers, importers, exporters and related transactions, and national weapons inventories. Reliable markings should also be put on weapons to combat illicit trafficking, and appropriate measures should be taken to secure their weapons against corruption.
States should explore closer cooperation and voluntary harmonization of national export, import, transit and customs procedures, according to the report. Regionally and internationally, illicit trafficking should be addressed through: information exchanges on illegal activities; combined police operations; border guard operations; and intelligence and customs operations; technical and training assistance; establishment of national points of contact; and improved judicial cooperation.
Also according to the report, States are encouraged to consider developing and strengthening transparency measures at the multilateral, regional, subregional and national levels. Voluntary exchanges of information on national policies, legislation and administrative control over arms should be considered, as well as appropriate measures to promote restraint and responsibility in conventional arms transfers.
Concerning the role of the United Nations, the report states that the Secretary-General should be invited to consider case-by-case inclusion of voluntary weapons collection or destruction programmes in future peacekeeping missions. The United Nations could coordinate information exchanges between States and, at the request of States concerned, assist in developing disarmament and arms control programmes. The United Nations coordination role on demining and related matters should be fulfilled, and cooperation increased within the United Nations System. The United Nations should continue to play a leading role in addressing the issue of small arms.
Action on Commission Reports
MAGED ABDELAZIZ (Egypt), Chairman of the Commission, called on the Chairmen of each working group to introduce their reports to the Commission.
EMILIO IZQUIERDO (Ecuador), Chairman of working group I (on nuclear- weapon-free zones), said the working group had held 17 meetings during this session. There had been intense consultations to study the text of a Chairman's document, that had formed the basis of negotiations. Delegations' documents had also been used as foundations for negotiations. Four revisions to a draft document had been made and finally, this morning, the resulting document had been adopted by consensus. Delegations had shown talent, firmness, flexibility and high responsibility in reaching consensus. The international community now had guidelines that would help establish nuclear-
Disarmament Commission - 8 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
weapon-free zones. That was an achievement of real importance to the international community.
The Commission then adopted the report of its working group I without a vote.
ARIZAL EFFENDI (Indonesia), Chairman of working group II (on objectives and an agenda for the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament), introduced his group's report. The special session had been debated now for four consecutive years, he said. After intensive formal and informal negotiations, the Chairman had proposed a statement and two packages of proposals to the group. During the final minutes available for negotiations the vast majority of delegations had agreed, but the agreement of all delegations had not been obtained.
At its final meeting, therefore, the working group had decided it could not reach consensus on the objectives and agenda of the special session. It had also adopted its final report.
The Commission then adopted the report of its working group II without a vote.
MICHAEL HOEY (Ireland), Chairman of working group III (on guidelines for conventional arms control, limitation and disarmament), introduced the report of that group. The working group had held 12 meetings at this session. At its meeting on 28 April, it had adopted guidelines by consensus. When the agenda item on conventional arms control had first been taken up by the Commission three years ago, there had been hesitation on the part of many delegations about the nature and scope of the undertaking, as well as some reticence, given the political sensitivities of some issues. There had since been an evolution, and the "remarkably painless" consensus adoption of the guidelines was significant and encouraging.
Discussions had been enriched by the contribution of delegations with recent post-conflict experience and experience of practical disarmament measures, he said. In addition, the working group had been reminded that excessive accumulation of small arms and light weapons, the absence of control to arrest such accumulation, and the illicit arms trade continued to negatively effect States' security and development. The guidelines represented an important new development in addressing post-conflict situations and the manner in which practical disarmament measures were integrated.
The Commission then adopted the report of working group III without a vote.
It then moved to consideration of its draft report.
Disarmament Commission - 9 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
GAILE ANN RAMOUTAR (Trinidad and Tobago), Rapporteur of the Commission, introduced the Commission's draft report. It consisted of four chapters, she said. The last chapter contained the reports of the subsidiary bodies of the Commission -- on nuclear-weapon-free zones, on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, and on conventional disarmament. All three items were in their final years of their consideration. The report also covered other issues discussed in the Commission's Committee of the Whole.
After a chapter-by-chapter consideration, the Commission adopted its report without a vote.
Concluding Statements
GUSTAVO ALBIN (Mexico) said that, with political will, Member States could make progress towards disarmament. Regrettably, that spirit of compromise had failed to prevail in the negotiations on the convening of a fourth special session on disarmament. Although there had been some signs of a greater opening on the part of some delegations, those signs had not been sufficient to achieve the necessary consensus.
He said the Disarmament Commission should not have a substantive debate -- that should be conducted in the special session itself. His delegation, and the majority of others, was convinced of the need to hold the fourth special session. The work must be continued. The next General Assembly session of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) would provide a new opportunity to complete the work of that collective effort. Hopefully, the Assembly would enjoy the cooperation and continued interest of all delegations in order to achieve that goal.
GUNTHER SEIBERT (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that although the Commission had been unable to attain all of its goals, it had successfully concluded two issues. When measured against other years, that must be seen as a remarkable success. Much of the credit for that success was owed the Chairman, with his visible and invisible hand.
Success was not the only yardstick of merit, he said. Although consensus had not been reached in one working group, its Chairman had very nearly led its members to success, and no one could have achieved more under the present circumstances. Also at the current session, members had witnessed the first positive effects of decisions to reform the working mechanisms of the Commission, namely, the allowance for earlier and more careful preparation of its work.
He said he welcomed the adoption of guidelines on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones. Such success had been made possible by focusing on the general principles and objectives, which consistently and thoroughly
Disarmament Commission - 10 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
elaborated the core principle of arrangements arrived at freely. The guidelines drew important conclusions from past experience, which would provide further impetus to ongoing and future efforts.
Consensus on a fourth special session on disarmament was elusive, he said. During the past four years, the European Union had worked actively towards a consensus and had shown a high degree of flexibility. Despite some misgivings, it had been willing to accept the Chairman's paper of last year, as well as the two compromise proposals of the Chairman this year.
Although the untiring efforts of the Chairman had led members very close to an agreement on wording, he said it had finally become clear that the working group would not be able to overcome the fundamental and crucial problem already pointed out in the statement he had made earlier during the general debate, and which had been the true stumbling block for the last four years. Reaching a basic consensus that would provide some reasonable confidence that the special session would not repeat the failure of the past would not have been possible if members had tried to hide behind some compromise wording.
The adoption of guidelines on conventional arms control represented a major step forward in an area that had had a direct impact on the security and stability of concerned countries and subregions, he said. The Union believed that the document, despite the necessary compromises, represented a substantial conceptual contribution towards consolidation of peace in post- conflict situations and towards combatting the excessive and destabilizing accumulation of weapons, particularly small arms and light weapons. The purpose of that concept was to help those States and regions that suffered from conflict and from the excessive and destabilizing accumulation of weapons, and to help build a bridge between different groups of countries.
The document, he noted, was a tool upon which the international community of States, as well as regions, subregions and countries concerned, could draw in order to consolidate peace after conflicts, particularly internal conflicts, and prevent such situations from emerging and re-emerging.
KATHARINE C. CRITTENBERGER (United States) said her delegation was pleased to join consensus on the paper concerning the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, which her country had long supported. Paragraph 32 of the paper, concerning the basis for establishment of such zones, addressed questions which her country considered extremely important.
Indeed, each State was free to conclude international or regional security arrangments best suited to its own security needs, she said. There were many possible approaches, including the option to reach agreement on the establishment of such a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Each State was entitled to
Disarmament Commission - 11 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
decide that for itself, and might prefer methods that were not compatible with the establishment of such a zone.
She said the provisions of a nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty must likewise be consistent with international law and could not affect rights and obligations under the United Nations Charter. Paragraph 32 effectively made that point, but because the wording was very general, she wished to call attention to an aspect her country considered particularly important: the provisions of a nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty could not affect the right to individual and collective self-defence, as recognized in Article 51 of the Charter. That was fundamental, and the functions and roles of a nuclear- weapon-free zone must be understood in that context.
Turning to working group II, she said the United States had questioned the value of a fourth special session when the two previous ones had produced no substantive results and when the international disarmament and non- proliferation calendar was already so "charged" that time could hardly be found for currently planned meetings. Her country accepted the notion of another special session because a forward-looking meeting to elaborate an agenda for multilateral disarmament and arms control in the post-cold war world was useful, assuming that States displayed a willingness to compromise and limit their aspirations to the attainable.
Unfortunately, such a willingness had not emerged, she said. In spite of four years of painstaking work, it was regrettable that consensus continued to elude the Commission on the objectives and agenda for a fourth special session on disarmament. The fact that the proposals had not found consensus was an unfortunate indicator that some did not share the view that the time for a re-examination of multilateral arms control and disarmament guidelines, priorities, and objectives had come.
She said her country was pleased that working group III had succeeded in reaching agreement on conventional arms control guidelines, with particular emphasis on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures. While the paper was not prescriptive, it provided a list -- a "grab bag" -- of measures that could be applied in post-conflict situations.
Among her delegation's regrets was the deletion of any reference to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, she said. In addition, the list of principles was unbalanced -- while it mentioned the principle of non- interference in the internal affairs of States several times, it made no mention of respect for human rights, without which, durable peace could not be assured. The United States could not subscribe to a blanket prohibition on the export of arms other than to governments. In most cases, it was a wise policy, but in some, it could be morally unacceptable -- prohibiting individuals or groups from defending themselves against the persecutions of
Disarmament Commission - 12 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
tyrants. Overall, the agreed text would pave the way for concrete action on small arms and for more integrated approaches to post-conflict peace building.
RICHARD TAUWHARE (United Kingdom), speaking also on behalf of France, said that, in addition to their association with the statement made on behalf of the European Union, the two States wished to associate themselves with comments made by the representative of the United States on paragraph 32 of the working group paper on nuclear-weapon-free zones.
SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said that agreements reached by working group I on nuclear weapon-free zones and Working Group III on conventional disarmament would promote a clearer understanding of the concepts themselves, as well as States' positions on them. They would provide useful consensus guidelines and would constitute valuable resources.
India was deeply disappointed, however, that consensus could not be reached in working group II on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, she said. It had originally been an Indian initiative presented to a Non-Aligned Movement ministerial meeting in 1994.
From the outset, India and the Non-Aligned Movement had been clear about what they wanted from the special session, she said. Positive changes had occurred in other disarmament areas, but real danger lay in the paralysis over nuclear weapons. Following the end of the cold war, not only was there no longer any need for nuclear weapons, but the Non-Aligned Movement believed they could be banned. That was the rationale for the special session.
India reluctantly believed that, unless there was consensus on the special session's objectives, agenda and programme, the session could not be held, she said. Even while the Commission was sitting at its current session, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) statement had made it clear that NATO considered that its security depended on nuclear weapons and that such weapons preserved peace.
Despite claims by some, India did not believe that the concept of the special session was obsolete, she said. She had proposed that, in light of recent events, an agenda item be included to address the consequences and implications of enforcement action for peace and security taken without the authorization of the Security Council. Any action which disrupted peace, security and stability would necessarily impact on the international disarmament agenda. The precedent set by NATO's unilateral action in the Balkans must be analyzed and abjured.
India remained committed to the convening of the session, she said. It was essential that the objectives of the session reaffirm the principles and priorities of the first special session, preserving what had been achieved while looking to the future. Those who wished to retain nuclear weapons as a
Disarmament Commission - 13 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
currency of power had insisted that no language be included that could even implicitly bring that to the special session. Through intransigence masked in reasonableness -- "the constructive ambiguity of a camouflaged silo" -- they had destroyed the process.
GHOLAMHOSSEIN DEHGHANI (Iran) noted that the Commission had successfully completed its consideration of two very important agenda items, namely the adoption of principles and guidelines for the establishment of nuclear-weapon- free zones, and guidelines for conventional arms control and limitation. That success had proved, once again, the efficiency of the Commission as a universal deliberative body of the General Assembly. Next year, the revitalized Commission should be even more efficient and successful in carrying out its mandate.
Due to the exemplary chairmanship of the third working group, it had been able to provide consensus guidelines on conventional arms, but credit for that achievement also belonged to the cooperation of all delegations, in particular, those countries which relied on such weapons for their security. Such flexibility should be carried over into nuclear disarmament, which would hopefully be considered next year. The consensus document on nuclear-weapon- free zones could contribute to strengthening existing zones and establishing new ones, particularly in the Middle East, to which the consensus guidelines had made a clear reference.
Regrettably, despite the serious efforts made by the chairman of the second working group, consensus could not be reached on the agenda and objectives of a fourth special session on disarmament. Hopefully, a solution to that problem would be found during the forthcoming session of the First Committee.
BRONTE MOULES (Australia) said that, for the first time in several years, the Commission had achieved concrete results of which it could be proud. The two agenda items completed were a testament to what the Commission could achieve if political will existed. Sadly, the failure to complete the other item underscored that the Commission also had its limitations.
The conventional arms guidelines were ground-breaking and a timely achievement, she said. They would make a contribution to the process of disarmament in post-conflict situations, and she hoped they would become a valuable tool for countries with excessive accumulations of small arms and light weapons.
The result on nuclear-weapon-free zones was also very welcome, she said. Identifying generally applicable guidelines was difficult and challenging, and Australia was encouraged that the Commission could rise to the challenge. The success highlighted the importance of the Commission being both ambitious and realistic in setting its goals.
Disarmament Commission - 14 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
Australia regretted the lack of a result in working group II, she said. The failure had occurred even though the General Assembly had recognized the importance of the issue, and after many delegations had said they could accept the chairman's paper and subsequent proposals. The arguments against the paper were the very arguments that should have been saved for the session itself. No one could doubt that the special session would have given full opportunity for the raising of all issues that delegations wished to raise. No agenda or objectives could prevent that.
Australia attached importance to building on the progress on reform of the Commission achieved last session, she said. More could be done. She continued to favour, for the long term, a two-week session. Members should be active and progressive in seeking to improve both the Commission's efficiency and its effectiveness.
FRANÇOIS RICHIER (France), speaking also on behalf of the United States and the United Kingdom, said that the adoption of the document on nuclear- weapon-free zones did not in any way change the positions of those three countries on the matter of the southern hemisphere as a nuclear-weapon-free zone, which they had already expressed during the fifty-third session of the First Committee.
MARINA LAKER (Canada) said her delegation's opening statement had reaffirmed her country's belief that the value of the Disarmament Commission was not only to increase awareness of issues, but also to identify principles and guidelines to achieve common goals in the areas of disarmament and international security. The approaches to those issues could now be addressed in a manner that created a synergy between States and established bodies, working together for international, national, regional, and subregional solutions.
She said that deliberations in the three working groups had been constructive, considering the complexity of the issues and the inevitable divergency of views. The Commission had now completed its current programme of work. While it was disappointing that consensus had eluded the working group on the fourth special session, the tireless efforts of the chairman deserved tribute. Canada had been prepared to join consensus on the packages he had proposed. Although not a perfect fit with its national views, those had offered the international community a vital framework upon which to begin consideration of new perspectives, guided by fundamental principles, in order to strengthen and promote disarmament and international security upon entering a new and challenging millennium.
She said that, hopefully, the work accomplished in the working group charged with formulating guidelines and principles for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones could be drawn upon by all States searching for tools to promote nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and regional security.
Disarmament Commission - 15 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
The comprehensive support of the five nuclear-weapon States for those zones was essential, and she urged unconditional action by them to that end.
The contribution of the chairman of the third working group had been instrumental in allowing the Commission to agree by consensus on guidelines on conventional arms control, she said. That document would provide clear and adaptable guidance to those States seeking solutions and assistance in support of efforts to consolidate peace, foster cooperation and entrench disarmament and confidence-building measures. While primarily applicable for the consolidation of peace in post-conflict situations, the principles and measures also demonstrated just how urgently the international community was rethinking the conduct of its affairs in a world where the security of all Member States depended on the promotion of human, regional and international security.
ABDELKADER MESDOUA (Algeria) said his country was happy that the Commission had managed to complete its consideration of nuclear-weapon-free zones. The document adopted was a valuable achievement for the international community. It was the first consensus document on this important matter and he was happy to see that the nuclear-weapon States had joined the consensus.
Despite the lack of agreement on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, the draft document produced by the working group chairman was a valid basis for consensus, he said. The failure was not the responsibility of the chairman, but all member States shared in it. Algeria hoped the absence of agreement in the Commission would not have a negative impact on the convening of the special session. The session was timely and important, despite the disagreements.
The guidelines for conventional arms control were balanced and would probably help countries that suffered problems related to post-conflict peace- building, he said. The clear principles in the document had allowed many delegations to join the consensus. The early appointment of the working group chairman had also contributed to the successful completion of this complex item.
The Commission had just reconfirmed its importance through the adoption of successful reports on two items. Despite the failure on one item, many issues that were important to the security of mankind could usefully be considered in the Commission.
SHAMIM AHMED (Bangladesh) said cooperation had made a successful session of the Commission. He wished to record sincere appreciation for the initiative of presenting the draft medium-term plan for the period from 2002 to 2005 to the Commission's Committee of the Whole. Bangladesh appreciated the plan and would study it carefully. However, it shared the opinion with some other delegations that the Commission was not the best forum for this -- it could probably be better discussed in the General Assembly's First Committee.
Disarmament Commission - 16 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
RODOLFO ELISEO BENITEZ VERSON (Cuba) said that, once again, the invaluable importance of the Disarmament Commission as a universal, specialized deliberative body, capable of adopting very important documents on topics of concern, had been clearly demonstrated. Many people, directly or indirectly, had wanted to get rid of the Commission, which they said was ineffective. Yet, they did not have very strong arguments for that proposal.
He said that small delegations had experienced some difficulty participating in the intense dynamics of the Commission this year, due to the convening of parallel meetings at virtually all times, as well as the numerous informal consultations. Hopefully, as part of the rationalization of the work of the Commission due to begin next year, the holding of parallel meetings would become the exception and not the rule. One important advance this year had been the appointment of the chairmen of the working groups ahead of time, enabling them to begin informal consultations during the inter-sessional period.
The process which had finally permitted the adoption -- almost in the final days -- of the document on nuclear-weapon-free zones, had been a complex one, he said. Many delegations had concerns about the topic, but a spirit of compromise had prevailed. Now there were general guidelines, which would be of fundamental use in the establishment of such zones.
His delegation deeply lamented that after four years of intensive work consensus had eluded members on the fourth special session on disarmament. For the Non-Aligned Movement, the convening of that session was a very important goal. Despite having devoted an additional year to that topic, once again there had been a failure of political will by some countries from the very start of the promotion of that idea. He was concerned about the double standard still held by some who, on the one hand, tried to deny the importance of the Final Document of 1978, while seeking endlessly to cling to an alliance created during the cold war which had now disappeared.
The working group on conventional arms control had undoubtedly dealt with a highly sensitive political matter for countries, he said. The complexities of the topic had not prevented delegations from showing flexibility. Indeed, they had managed to adopt a very substantial document. The text was balanced overall in dealing with a delicate issue, and did not allow for a partial or selective reading. No attention to one matter should supplant attention to another, given their complementary nature.
MEIR ITZHAKI (Israel) said that consensus had been achieved because certain core principles were shared. Israel supported the eventual creation of nuclear- weapon-free zones. It saw them as beneficial outgrowths of agreements between States, once they recognized one another and abolished any state of war or threat between them. The possibility of beginning to take such steps was viewed with
Disarmament Commission - 17 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
hope. Israel supported the core principles of the working group chairman's paper on nuclear-weapon-free zones, and noted that arrangements for such zones depended on regional cooperation and on initiatives taken directly between States of a region. As Israel placed primacy on beginning such arrangements through regional confidence building, it was "in sync" with that emphasis.
As one of the only nations that remained mortally threatened by surrounding neighbours, some of which backed up their threats with increasing arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, Israel supported cooperative steps with other States of the region, he said. Such steps might forge new relationships which would allow the process of establishing a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction to begin. Israel saw the cooperation and consensus in the Commission as a reflection of the confidence-building that would be necessary in reality. That the spirit of cooperation could have been tarnished by references that pinpointed the Middle East, in an openly political attempt to single out one country, was a matter of concern. Such blatantly politicized and specific initiatives only served to detract from the spirit of cooperation.
Israel hoped that efforts undertaken by some States during the Commission's session to rise above difference and discord in service of universal principles would lead to progress in reality, he said. It particularly hoped that States would recognize each other's rights to exist in peace and security so that values advanced in the Commission could become facts on the ground.
SHAFQAT ALI KHAN (Pakistan) said he admired the efforts of the Commission Chairman and the chairmen of the three working groups. While he was pleased that two of the working groups had concluded their work successfully, his happiness was somewhat dampened by the lack of consensus on the agenda and objectives of a fourth special session, even after four years.
He said his country attached great importance to the early convening of such a session and had been genuinely optimistic about consensus, considering that consideration of that topic was in its fourth and last year; however, that hope had been in vain. Some delegations had now shown the necessary flexibility, which was a fundamental requirement for reaching any compromise. The principles and priorities, as laid down in the first special session on disarmament, should be carried forward.
VADIM REZNIKOV (Belarus) said he had not intended to speak, but the clearly politicized statement made at an earlier meeting by Poland on behalf of a number of States, which had criticized the Belarus initiative to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in central Europe, had obliged him to speak. The main thrust of Poland's statement was that the establishment of a zone was not in the interest of the States of the region, that the proposal did not have consensus support of those States, and that it did not contribute to their sovereign decisions on their security.
Disarmament Commission - 18 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
Twelve States had associated themselves with the statement, he said. Three had become members of NATO and had taken part in NATO's action in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -- an action not approved by the Security Council. The others had been listed as viable candidates for membership of that alliance. It was axiomatic that it was impossible to achieve peace, security and democratic values by the use or threat of force. Only through partnership and confidence-building was it possible to have peace.
Belarus supported the provisions of the United Nations Charter, he said. The world community could not be allowed to ignore the bitter experience of two world wars, which had begun in Europe. Belarus had tried to strengthen understanding and trust in Europe. In light of the tragic events in the Balkans, efforts to expand the extent of nuclear-weapon-free zones, including on the European continent, were important.
At this session, the Disarmament Commission had prepared two very important documents geared to today and to the future, he said. The document on nuclear-weapon-free zones was the result of a compromise. It did not fully reflect what Belarus wanted, but he had joined the consensus because he was convinced the document was both important and necessary. The zone guidelines established a good basis for the practical implementation of tasks the international community had defined as priorities. Belarus hoped that future sessions would discuss timely and important problems related to disarmament and international security.
ANA M. MENENDEZ (Spain) said her delegation firmly supported the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region, and taking into account the specific characteristics of each region. Those zones strengthened regional and international peace and security. Her country specifically supported the objectives of the 1996 Pelindaba Treaty, which had established a nuclear- weapon-free zone in Africa. Reaching consensus in the relevant working group and achieving a reference document was a welcome result. Her delegation was not fully satisfied with the language of some paragraphs, but it had, nevertheless, demonstrated flexibility in negotiations and had joined consensus on the text.
On the positive side of the ledger, she said that the document had enshrined the principle of respect for the particular conditions of each zone, including geography and the process of consultations with interested States. The text also addressed questions relating to States outside the region with part of their territories within a nuclear-weapon-free zone. In connection with a provision of the Pelindaba Treaty, her country reserved the right to join that instrument. Its applicability to a part of Spanish territory was not admissible in the light of the fact that Spain had not played a full part in producing that Treaty. As a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the NPT,
Disarmament Commission - 19 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
Spain had certain standards in the area of denuclearization, which went beyond the obligations stipulated in the Pelindaba Treaty.
LI CHANGHE (China) said the substantive session had achieved important results. The document on nuclear-weapon-free zones had been finalized after three years of hard work. The paper summarized the experiences and contributions of existing zones and had formulated guidelines for the future establishment of such zones. His delegation was sincerely grateful to the chairman of working group I and to delegations for their spirit of setting aside differences while seeking a common ground.
He said that during the deliberations the relationship between existing security mechanisms and existing nuclear-weapon-free zones had been an important issue. China had joined consensus on that point and would reiterate that such zones should be genuine. Relevant regional and international agreements should in no way jeopardize the non-nuclear status of those zones. The States parties to such treaties must not use any pretext, including military alliances, for not honouring their obligations.
A common understanding had now been reached concerning definition of boundaries, he said. Past lessons had revealed that to be an important issue which directly affected the establishment of such a zone and the ability to win the support of the countries concerned. Countries should engage in full consultations, especially with those countries which were signatories to protocols, to define the boundaries, particularly when territories under dispute were involved. His country would always support the efforts made by the countries of the Middle East, Central Asia and others to create such zones. China also supported Mongolia's proposal for the establishment of its nuclear-weapon-free status.
After four years of deliberations, consensus had eluded the Commission on the fourth special session on disarmament because of fundamental disagreements concerning its objectives, he said. While that failure was regrettable, the Commission's years-long efforts had not been futile -- they had deepened countries' understanding of each other's concern, which would serve to narrow the differences.
After three years, the Commission had finally come up with guidelines on conventional arms control, he went on. Those were comprehensive and reflected a common wish of diverse countries to eliminate the negative influence of war and consolidate peace in post-conflict situations. The relatively successful completion of the mandate of the working group was closely associated with the personal effort of its chairman.
During the formulation of those guidelines, he said it had been agreed that emphasis should be place on the consolidation of peace in post-conflict countries. In addition, regions of the world differed in their nature and one
Disarmament Commission - 20 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
practice might not be applicable to all regions. Flexibility was, therefore, required. It was also necessary to abide by the principle of non-interference in a country's internal affairs, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
He said that in order to solve the illegal transfer of arms and eliminate their negative influence in post-conflict areas, countries should take various legislative measures to control the use, possession and transfer of those arms. Those important elements had also been reflected in the guidelines.
JEAN PHILIP DU PREEZ (South Africa) said he was satisfied with the outcome of the Commission's session, particularly with the adoption of the report on nuclear-weapon-free zones and on guidelines for conventional arms limitation. The reports illustrated the importance of the Commission as a deliberative organ concerned with important matters. The voluntary and non-binding guidelines on nuclear-weapon-free zones could only be regarded as a non-exhaustive list of possible actions in the creation of such zones, and they should not be interpreted so as to prevent the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones.
South Africa was deeply disappointed over the failure to reach consensus on the objectives and agenda of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, he said. The session would have offered an opportunity to review the most critical aspects of disarmament, and to mobilize the international community and the public. The failure could, however, not be blamed on the chairman of the working group.
MOKHTAR CHAOUACHI (Tunisia), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, welcomed the two important documents adopted by the Commission, but regretted that it had not been possible to adopt the third document on the special General Assembly session.
CHU CHANG-BEOM (Republic of Korea) said the Commission session had achieved mixed results. He welcomed the consensus on the work of working groups I and III, but was disappointed that working group III had not been able to reach consensus on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, despite tireless efforts. The overwhelming majority of delegations had supported the chairman's efforts to gain consensus. It was regrettable that, due to intransigence and lack of political will, consensus could not be achieved.
It was still his strong belief that the time had come to realize the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, he said, especially given the changes that had occurred in the security environment since the previous special sessions. If and when it was convened, its objectives should not be limited to reaffirming what had been achieved at the first special session, but should also chart a course for the future.
Disarmament Commission - 21 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
Though the failure to reach consensus was regrettable, he continued, one should not be overly pessimistic. What had been achieved over the three weeks would help build the foundation for eventual consensus. He hoped the process and efforts would be continued, and perhaps the opportunity presented by the forthcoming General Assembly session could be used to reach consensus.
He welcomed the document adopted on the establishment of nuclear-weapon- free zones. His country had previously stressed that it believed zones contributed to global and regional peace and security. Some fundamental principles had been enunciated. The zones, however, should fully account for the specific security circumstances of a particular region, and countries' rights to self-defence should not be affected. The right of a State to individual or collective self-defence was not only upheld in the United Nations Charter, but also formed part of customary international law. He added that his joining the consensus had been based on the understanding that there was an inherent right of States to self-defence.
JARGALSAIKHAN ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia) said that, as a member of the Bureau, his delegation had had the honour and privilege of witnessing the enormous efforts that had been made during the course of the session. The Chairman's exemplary personal leadership had inspired everyone and contributed to narrowing the differences and finding solutions to many delicate issues. The practical importance of the Commission's adoption of conventional arms control guidelines could not be overemphasized. That success had demonstrated that, given good will and hard work, the Commission was able to contribute, in a practical manner, to the cause of arms control, limitation and disarmament.
He said that he was also satisfied with the adoption of guidelines for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, the result of intense negotiations. Those guidelines would facilitate the future creation of such zones, and they represented another concrete, practical contribution by the Commission and, in fact, by the United Nations, to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. In that connection, he expressed his deep appreciation to the many delegations that had supported his country's efforts to establish a nuclear- weapon-free status. When addressing that question, all the nuclear-weapon States had reiterated their full support for the relevant General Assembly resolution, as well as their resolve to work together with Mongolia towards it realization. He underlined his appreciation for China's firm and clear support in that regard.
Like others, he said he regretted that the negotiations on the question of the fourth special session had not yielded positive results. That demonstrated that the genuine political will of all was needed to reach agreement on that vital issue. Hopefully, the realization of the far-reaching importance of such a session for all States would allow them to look beyond their own immediate interests, however important those might be. The General Assembly should continue dealing with that issue in order to overcome the impasse.
Disarmament Commission - 22 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
IOURI G. ORLOV (Russian Federation) said that the United Nations in recent days was taking a maturity test, as a number of Member States were crudely trampling upon the United Nations Charter, primarily through the use of force. International peace and security was possible only by adhering to the decisions of the United Nations Security Council. It was completely unacceptable for States to unilaterally set aside certain principles, at the expense of those principles guiding civilized international relations.
He said acting in that way was an "exceptionally dangerous policy which might blow up the entire system of international relations". The system's central element -- the United Nations Charter -- was supposed to guarantee global stability. Actions in defiance of the Charter might cause extremely dangerous and irreversible damage to the disarmament process. It was exceptionally important that, in the current unprecedented situation in international relations, the Commission should end on a positive note by the consensus adoption of two important documents.
Mr. TOMASZEWSKI (Poland) said he attached great importance to nuclear- weapon-free zones, but as one option for guaranteeing the security of a country. They were not the only solution. Therefore, he associated himself with statements on paragraph 32 concerning regional security arrangements. He was additionally grateful to Belarus for reminding the Commission of Poland's statement on behalf of 12 States of Europe on the proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in central Europe. The countries concerned had stressed that they favoured zones as complements to other security arrangements, but that they must not interfere with existing arrangements made by States to protect their security.
The Belarus proposal was not in line with the sovereign desire of many States to participate in the new European security architecture, he continued. It was, therefore, not in accord with the guidelines' emphasis that zones be based on arrangements freely arrived at among the States of a region.
The Commission Chairman, Mr. ABDELAZIZ (Egypt), said, in closing remarks, that the early establishment of the Commission Bureau had had positive effect on its work. All negotiations had taken place in a constructive fashion aimed at reaching consensus. What had been achieved had been achieved through collective political will. What had not been achieved had not been achieved because of the absence of political will.
Regardless of justifications advanced, the continuation of the Commission as a deliberative body required a rethinking of the way in which national interests could be preserved in the wider context of collective interests, he said. The Commission should not be considered a forum to achieve national interests at the expense of collective interests and common goals.
He regretted the failure to reach consensus on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, he said. The failure had
Disarmament Commission - 23 - Press Release DC/2641 231st Meeting (PM) 30 April 1999
occurred despite the efforts of the working group chairman and despite majority support. At the same time, the major achievement on guidelines on conventional arms was proof that hard work and serious effort, combined with political will, could realize objectives.
This also applied to the guidelines on nuclear-weapon-free zones, he said. Delegations had insisted that consensus be reached, despite the lengthy negotiations required. Time factors had not permitted consideration of the proposed agenda items for the Commission's next session; however, he would start holding informal consultations in the period between this Commission session and the commencement of the session of the Assembly's First Committee, with a view to the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution on the Commission's work that would include the two new items.
* *** *