PRESS BRIEFING ON DISARMAMENT AFFAIRS

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING ON DISARMAMENT AFFAIRS

At a Headquarters press briefing today, sponsored by the Department for Disarmament Affairs, a group of interested parties discussed issues currently before the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Dr. Darach MacFhionnehaire, Head of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation at the Irish Mission, told correspondents the adoption of a draft resolution on the so-called "New Agenda" for nuclear disarmament was extremely important, as it would serve to solidify the advances of the last three years on that issue.

Dr. MacFhionnehaire was introduced by Merav Datan, Director of the United Nations Office of Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. They were joined by Jean du Preez, Counsellor on Disarmament at the South African Mission, who spoke on small arms; and William Hartung, a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York, who discussed anti-ballistic missile issues.

Ms. Datan said the deliberations of the First Committee were being followed closely by a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The group was providing detailed information and analysis on a Web site, of which the address was reachingcriticalwill.org.

Dr. MacFhionnehaire said the New Agenda text on nuclear disarmament was co-sponsored by 60 Member States, and the New Agenda group was getting input from the representatives of many others. Broad support would be a crucial first step in the new orientation towards reducing the operational status of nuclear weapons and their strategic importance, bilateral and unilateral issues, and questions of irreversibility and transparency. The core elements of that direction could be elaborated on later.

Mr. du Preez said that nuclear disarmament was important to South Africa, a new member of the New Agenda group, but that the illicit trade in small arms had a greater impact on daily life in Africa. The First Committee was handling the issue in a multifaceted way that focused international attention on it. One draft resolution of the First Committee created mechanisms for destroying surplus weapons, and those that remained after conflicts were resolved. Another small arms resolution focused on regional efforts among the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to implement a moratorium on the traffic. And a third would create a United Nations conference to derive strategies from regional efforts to stem the illicit trade in small arms. Realistically, that conference would have solely political goals, with the implementation of actual measures to be undertaken by individual States themselves. The emphasis should be on obtaining the commitment of States to deal with the issue.

On the question of an anti-missile defence system, Mr. Hartung said the resolution drafted by Belarus, Russian Federation, and China would preserve and strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty already in force. Its provisions, he said, left little ambiguity. "To support that resolution", he said, "you would have to say we're not planning to deploy a missile defence

Disarmament Affairs Briefing - 2 - 25 October 2000

system." United States compliance with such a resolution would be problematic, however. He was happy to report that there had been some progress since last spring, when the United States Secretary of State came to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review brandishing the national missile defence proposal, with no progress to report in the reduction of nuclear weapons.

Since then, Mr. Hartung said, President Clinton had put the missile defence project on hold because of both scientific and diplomatic problems. His administration claimed it was still committed to the concept, however. And where presidential candidate Al Gore was tentatively reluctant to deploy, George W. Bush was for "all missile defence all the time", wherever he could put it -- land, air, space or sea. The reality was, though, that alternative systems might be even harder to develop than the ones which had failed thus far.

Mr. Hartung said his hope was that the United States could be brought around to the position of limiting missile threats through diplomacy, rather than deploying the technical defence against missiles. Already such negotiations were being held with North Korea. In that regard, the draft resolution Iran was contemplating might be useful. The consensus position, he thought, was that "we have to find ways to get rid of nuclear weapons, the sooner the better, and deploying a missile defence is the antithesis of that ... It brings us back to the Strangelovian world ... an absurd place to be at the beginning of a new century".

Correspondents asked for details on the ABM resolutions. The text of the main one, Mr. Hartung said, was exactly the same as that of previous sessions. The resolution by Iran called for an expert report on missiles in all their aspects. He felt that its purpose was to help develop strategies for lessening missile threats. Those would be alternatives to anti-missile systems.

A correspondent asked if the small arms conference would deal only with the illicit trade in small arms or would it also discuss those that were legitimately manufactured and sold. Mr. du Preez replied that the panel of experts who originally requested the conference felt that the illicit trade could not be looked at without looking at the legal trade, as well. Regulation of that sphere was difficult, however, as some States considered it an infringement of their rights to self defence and to bear arms. The conference could emphasize the legal responsibility of States for the eventual destination of weapons.

* *** *