Preparatory Committee for the

United Nations Conference on

 The Illicit Trade in Small Arms

 And Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

14^th Meeting (AM)

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR JULY CONFERENCE ON ILLICIT SMALL ARMS TRADE

CONTINUES DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ACTION PROGRAMME

The promising opportunity of the upcoming Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects would herald the beginning of the end of the illicit small arms trade, its Preparatory Committee was told this morning, as it continued a review of a proposed draft programme of action.

Dominating the Committee’s exchange of views this morning on the Chairman’s proposed recommendation for the Conference, to be held in New York from 9 to 20 July, was a discussion of how to limit the action programme to the Conference’s mandate, while not foreclosing opportunities to address related aspects of the global problem.

One representative cautioned against trying to do everything and failing to do anything effectively.  Including the issue of child soldiers and related humanitarian concerns, for example, would duplicate ongoing efforts in other United Nations forums.  The action programme must keep within the mandate and scope set forth by the General Assembly, which decided in December 1999 to hold the Conference and launch preparations. 

Similarly, another representative felt that given the purpose of the action plan to establish a political document, rather than a legally binding one, the mandatory nature of the language used to express the nature of States’ commitments might be inappropriate.  The right balance should be achieved between moving forward, on the one hand, and States’ ability to meet their commitments, on the other.

The document should express the magnitude of the illicit trade, another delegation insisted, especially its global dimension, the threat it represented to the security and stability of many nations, and its impact on economic and social development.  Differing national laws and regulations had made it possible for weapons to be acquired in a country and then misused in another.  The action programme should recognize the responsibility of all States to combat the illicit trade.

Concern was also expressed that the core section II of the draft, on preventing, controlling and curbing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, was unclear and unfocused.  Indeed, many paragraphs had imposed new and unjustified mechanisms.  Further, many provisions overlapped the obligations and

jurisprudence of States, as if seeking to control the activities of States through international documents.  Its reference to humanitarian law, for example, was handled unrealistically, as if there were existing basic norms or international laws relating to the illicit small arms trade. 

Statements on the preambular section of the draft programme of action were made by the representatives of the United States, Colombia, and the Russian Federation.

Statements on Section II of the draft were made by the representatives of Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), Canada, Mexico, China, France, Norway, Malaysia, Japan, Australia, Syria, Ghana, Cuba, Sri Lanka, and the Russian Federation.  The Observer of Switzerland also spoke.

The Preparatory Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to continue its consideration of the proposed draft programme of action.

Committee Work Programme

The Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects met this morning to continue its week-long exchange of views on the Chairman’s proposal for a draft programme of action (document A/CONF.192.PC/L.4).

The Committee is expected to continue consideration of the preamble of the draft proposal, and is then expected to move into a discuss of section II, on preventing, controlling and curbing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  (For background see Press Release DC/2734 of 5 January and DC/2736 of 9 January.)

Comments on Proposed Preamble (Section I)

Continuing consideration of the preamble to the Chairman’s proposed action programme, a representative agreed with the widely held view that the preamble could be pared down to key essentials, rather than attempt to cover every conceivable relevant issue.  Moreover, the preamble must be kept within the mandate and scope of the General Assembly resolution.  The danger in trying to do everything was the possibility of failing to do anything effectively.  Also important was not duplicating existing ongoing efforts in other United Nations forums, such as the issue of child soldiers and related humanitarian concerns.

The representative agreed that the rights and responsibilities under the United Nations Charter might be combined and reformulated.  It was especially important that the relevant provisions of the Charter must be accurately quoted.  Overall, the action plan should lead to political, and not legal, commitments.  Certain paragraphs appeared to disparage and diminish the importance of national and regional efforts; the language focused attention on global requirements and drew attention away from regional measures.  That imbalance should be corrected.  Global efforts should support and facilitate regional and national initiatives, and not subsume them.  Ammunition and explosives should not be included in a definition of small arms and light weapons; the problem was already fraught with difficulty and inclusion of those items might raise the challenge to impossible levels.

Another representative suggested that the preamble should express the magnitude of the illicit trade, including its global dimension, the threat it represented to the security and stability of many nations, and its impact on economic and social development.  Paragraph 29, regarding the “promising opportunity” of the Conference was of the utmost importance and should be among the first in the preamble.  It should not only take note of the effects of the illicit trade, but express that it was one of the most serious concerns.  The action programme should commit States to adopt rules and procedures which were harmonized to control and monitor the traffic, in order to prevent the illicit trade and its use for criminal purposes. 

Arms produced and stockpiled beyond what was needed for legal trade or self-defence had, in many cases, led to their uncontrolled dissemination and illicit trade, the representative said.  Differences among national laws and regulations had made it possible for weapons to be acquired in a country and then used in another or sold to civilians.  The preamble should recognize the responsibility of all States to combat the illicit trade scourge.  That responsibility should be shared among both producer nations and the victims of the illicit trade.  The main responsibility, however, fell to producer countries.  The crucial role of the United Nations, civil society and non-governmental organizations should also be recognized.  The task was huge; the Conference would represent the beginning of the end of the illicit trade.

Another representative said it was important to eliminate certain ambiguities in the language of the preamble, particularly on the exchange of information on the transfer of small arms.  The Committee must consider, among other things, whether such weapons were licit or illicit.  The focus should be on the problems of illicit dissemination of small arms and light weapons.

Consideration of Section II

The Committee then moved into a preliminary consideration of Section II of the draft proposal on preventing, controlling and curbing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  Several delegations wondered if the opening paragraphs of the section could be merged with the draft’s preamble.  Some also felt that there was a need to clarify the language on the link between humanitarian law and the trade in illicit arms.

While there was broad support for the general thrust of the paragraphs on the marking and traceability of small arms, many delegations expressed the desire to see those recommendations strengthened.  Indeed, some speakers said the notion of marking and tracing small arms would be the nexus of United Nations efforts to the implement international arms embargoes.  It was suggested, therefore, that the Committee should consider fashioning a legally binding instrument on the issue, within the language of the draft.  Several delegations went further, calling for an international convention on traceability.

Concerning the paragraphs on global measures on arms brokering activities, some delegations stressed the need to strengthen the language on international accountability.  While acknowledging the urgent need to address the issue, others suggested that the Committee closely follow the work of the independent expert on arms brokering.  The report of that expert’s activities would be issued within the month and the findings could prove useful as the Committee continued deliberations on the issue.  Several delegations also suggested that the outcome of the work currently underway in Geneva on an international firearms protocol might assist in focusing many of the Committee’s deliberations on this section of the draft.    

Another representative agreed that section II contained too many duplications and should, therefore, be streamlined.  There were many valuable ideas, but there was also some “mixing up” of realistic measures with somewhat ambitious or premature ones.  A practical approach to streamlining could be seen in the European Union’s document.  Dividing the measures into several clusters and then enumerating them under national, regional and global levels in each

category was confusing.  The text should be simplified and guidelines should be separated from measures.

One representative said that, given the purpose of the action plan -- to establish a political document rather than a legally binding one -- the mandatory nature of the language used to express the commitments of States might be inappropriate.  A balance should be achieved between moving forward, on the one hand, and the ability of States to meet their commitments, on the other.  While she had not wished to ignore the inclusion measures not set out in the draft, practical commitments should be acceptable to all States.

      Concern was also expressed that the core section II of the draft, on preventing, controlling and curbing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, was unclear and unfocused.  Indeed, many paragraphs had imposed new and unjustified mechanisms.  Further, many provisions overlapped the obligations and jurisprudence of States, as if seeking to control the activities of States through international documents.  Its reference to humanitarian law, for example, was handled in an unrealistic way, as if there were basic norms or international laws relating to the illicit small arms trade.  Also stressed was the need to regulate the trade in all its aspects, and not just the illicit trade by non-State actors.

One representative said that the measures set forth in the draft would have to conform fully to the objectives of the Conference.  Also crucial was recognition of the fact that each country and region had its own specific characteristics.  Thus, delegates should avoid an excessively prescriptive or overly ambitious programme of action.  What should be borne in mind was the central goal of the Conference, namely to facilitate control of weapons by States.  Asking States to establish national systems in that regard would be a considerable achievement.

The document should express the magnitude of the illicit trade, especially its global dimension, the threat it represented to the security and stability of many nations and its impact on economic and social development, another delegation stressed.  Differing national laws and regulations had made it possible for weapons to be acquired in a country and then misused in another.  The action programme should recognize the responsibility of all States to combat the illicit trade scourge.  While that responsibility should be shared among both producer nations and the victims of the illicit trade, the main responsibility fell to producer countries. 

* *** *