Preparatory Committee for the

United Nations Conference on

 the Illicit Trade in Small Arms

 and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

15^th Meeting (PM)

TRACEABILITY OF WEAPONS AND NEED FOR ENHANCED CUSTOMS SERVICES AND BORDER CONTROLS

DISCUSSED IN PREPARATORY COMMITTEE ON ILLICIT SMALL ARMS

Preventing, controlling and curbing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons continued to be the focus of discussions this afternoon, as the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects continued a review of a draft programme of action.

Eradicating the illicit trade is the goal of the Conference, to be held in New York from 9 to 20 July; how to achieve it elicited divergent views from delegations.  Some sought to address the root causes of conflict; others stressed the need to formulate measures in the context of the non-interference of the internal affairs of States and their right to self-defence.  Any approach to the current challenge should be shaped by the specific characteristics and security needs of individual countries and regions, many said.

As delegations continued their first-ever review of the Chairman’s proposed draft action plan, some expressed concern that its recommendations were far-reaching and overly ambitious.  Some speakers, however, including from Canada, insisted that “we should not fear ambition”, as a narrow approach was insufficient.  Canada added that despite the lack of precedent for the present task, delegations should seek new points of consensus from which to address that serious problem.

Similarly, the representative of Lesotho said that, given the magnitude of the problem, “perhaps ambition was exactly what was needed”.  He emphasized that the development and implementation of national programmes to manage the illicit arms flows required the proper marking of licit weapons, as that would enable “traceability” once those weapons became illicit.  A legally binding global agreement was also essential, he said.

The United States representative said that governments were ultimately responsible for solving the problem of illicit trade.  That required enhanced law enforcement, custom services and border controls.  Appropriate bilateral, regional and international information exchanges should be encouraged.  Transparency in matters of transfer was important, but that should not extend to national holdings.  Straying from the mandate by including provisions on child soldiers, legal trade, civilian possession and redefining rules of armed conflict would only complicate efforts and endanger any chance of success.

The representative of Nepal said the problem required a comprehensive approach.  It was imperative to bear in mind the need to reduce the demand for small arms and light weapons.  In that regard, the causes that engendered conflict, such as poverty, underdevelopment and insecurity, should be pondered. Once those issues were properly addressed and conflicts were resolved, the illicit arms trade would be significantly reduced.

Each State was “its own best judge” of the arms needed for its security, the representative of Singapore suggested.  The nature, causes and circumstances of the problems caused by the illicit traffic differed from country to country and region to region.  Universal codes would be most effective when they took full account of each case.  Overall, the plan of action should be tightly focused, with special emphasis on Article 51 of Charter, on sovereignty and self-defence.

In the course of the meeting, the representative of Mali introduced the Bamako Declaration on the proliferation, circulation and trafficking of small arms, which was the result of the Ministerial Conference of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), held from 30 November to 1 December 2000.  Several African delegations today endorsed the outcome, which they said had captured the thrust of the common African position on small arms and light weapons.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Egypt, Algeria, Lithuania, Nigeria, South Africa, Burkina Faso, India, Iraq, Poland, Indonesia, Israel, Republic of Korea, Colombia, Pakistan, Mozambique and Gabon.

The Preparatory Committee will meet next at 10 a.m. Thursday, 11 January, to continue its consideration of the proposed action programme.

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 afternoon to continue its week-long exchange of views on the Chairman’s proposal for a draft programme of action to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (document A/CONF.192.PC/L.4).

The Committee is expected to continue consideration of Section II of the draft proposal, on preventing, controlling and curbing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. 

Statements

ISMAIL KHAIRAT (Egypt) said section II formed the core of the draft under consideration today and, therefore, should be given adequate consideration.  He joined the opinions expressed earlier by several delegations that section II contained many controversial and ambiguous elements, quite a few of which fell outside the scope of the Conference and the General Assembly’s original mandate. It was crucial for the Committee to examine all ambitious or ambiguous language closely, with a view to rephrasing or eliminating those elements under dispute.

It was also important to seriously consider the rights of States to acquire weapons for self-defence, and draft language to that effect should be made very clear, he said.  Also, some of the international mechanisms highlighted in

section II not be implemented at this early stage.  In particular, issues concerning measures on arms brokering activities should be held aside until the expert group on that issue submitted its report.

Mr. MAANDI (Algeria) said the scope of the 2001 Conference should be limited exclusively to the illicit trade in small arms.  On the particularly sensitive issue of trafficking, it would be counterproductive to address ambiguous measures which fell outside of the scope of the Conference.  Some paragraphs, such as those dealing with principles of the Charter, should be refashioned to bring them into line with the objectives of the Conference.  The preamble should be shortened and overall brought in line with the General Assembly mandate for the Conference.

      VANESSA CHAN (Singapore) said she joined other delegations in expressing concerns at the use of what was considered mandatory language throughout the text. In that regard, it was crucial not to overstep the mandate given by the Assembly. To have a more efficient and workable outcome, the Conference should focus on trade in illicit weapons.  It was also important that provisions in section II of the plan of action not undermine the principles of the Charter, namely, the right of States to produce or acquire arms for their own security.

There was also concern that the plan of action called for universal systems and codes to be applied to local or regional problems, she said.  It was understandable that the imposition of universal codes could be superficially attractive, but that should not detract from apportioning due weight to local and regional efforts.

MOCTAR OUANE (Mali) presented the Bamako Declaration for the Committee’s consideration.  That text, the outcome of the Ministerial Conference of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), held from 30 November to 1 December 2000, on the proliferation, circulation and traffic in small arms, might prove helpful, as the Committee attempted to focus its efforts at reducing the distribution and illicit trade of small arms.  It was hoped that the 2001 Conference would adopt the Declaration as an official document.

He said that Declaration welcomed and reaffirmed support for numerous regional actions an initiatives, including the moratorium on small arms  adopted by Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Nairobi Declaration and its implementation plan adopted at a March 2000 conference of Great Lakes region States, and the Djibouti Declaration on anti-personnel mines, adopted in November 2000.

Overall, he continued, the Bamako Declaration reaffirmed the commitment of the member States of the OAU to the rules and principles of the Charter, particularly the right to State sovereignty.  It also expressed grave concern regarding the problem of the proliferation of small arms had on Africa.  It emphasized the creation of national coordination bodies to follow all aspects of small arms trade, the need to establish national legislative regulatory measures to monitor Security Council embargoes, and the need to enhance public awareness of the issue.

The Declaration also stressed the broad participation of civil society and the need to create mechanisms which harmonized small arms legislation at all levels, he said.  It noted the need to coordinate initiatives among international organizations that played an important role in the struggle against the illicit trade in small arms and to discourage the dumping of surplus arms in African countries.  Finally, the Declaration encouraged the Committee to ensure that the Conference adopt a realistic and workable programme of action.

Mr. SEMASKEVICIUS (Lithuania) said it was important to examine national, regional and global measures aimed at tackling the illicit arms trade.  He endorsed the position expressed by other delegations that it was important to stress the notion that small arms and light weapons identified for police and military use should be kept out of civilian circulation.

Mr. OGUNBANWO (Nigeria) said the section’s introductory paragraphs, as well as those of sections III and IV, should be merged with the draft’s preamble. Addressing the concerns expressed by several delegations about what was considered mandatory language in some paragraphs of this section, he said the basic structure of the Bamako Declaration was a possible solution.  The language of that document was presented in the form of recommendations to soften the mandatory tone.  He went on to suggest that issues relating to mechanisms might be better addressed in sections III or IV.  The issue of marking was also very important, and he felt it was crucial to fashion language that stressed the need to follow the lines of supply; States should be made accountable and responsible for the life cycle of arms in their possession.  It was also important to put in place national coordination bodies to monitor all aspects of the issue of trafficking production and transfer of small arms.

JEAN PHILIP DU PREEZ (South Africa) said he supported the provisions outlined in the Bamako Declaration.  His delegation also agreed that the generic definition of small arms and light weapons should include ammunitions and explosives.  He did not agree with other delegations that the opening paragraphs of the section should be moved to the preamble since those paragraphs largely corresponded to the African position outlined in the Bamako Declaration.  It was suggested that all discussion of mechanisms and proposals for international agreements to address the issue of illicit trade in small arms should be moved to section IV of the draft, on follow-up measures.

More focus should also be placed on regional nature of the problem, he said.  One important aspect missing from the section was the need to ensure that national coordination agencies and bodies should be established to look at all issues of the small arms trade.  On the issue of transparency, he felt that it might be premature to move in the direction of an international registry of small arms.

PHAKISO MOCHOCHOKO (Lesotho) said the proposed draft was a useful basis for discussions.  While there might be a need to streamline some of the paragraphs, he had not agreed that the contents were unnecessary or overly ambitious.  Given the magnitude of the problem of the illicit small arms trade, perhaps ambition was exactly what was needed.  Development and implementation of national programmes for the responsible management of illicit arms required the proper marking of licit weapons which would, in turn, enable “traceability” once those became illicit.  A legally binding global agreement was essential.

HIRA B.THAPA (Nepal) said the problem had to be examined in a comprehensive manner.  Members should not lose sight of the need to decrease the demand for such arms.  They should ponder the causes that engendered conflict, such as poverty, underdevelopment and insecurity.  If those issues were not properly addressed, it would be very difficult to address the use of small arms since there would always be conflicts that required them.

Mr. OUBIDA (Burkina Faso) addressed specific references in section II. 

J.S. MUKUL (India) said his delegation could support a number of proposals contained in the second section.  He understood that measures identified under the national heading would be undertaken by States, themselves.  He supported the proposal that regional measures should be consistent with an understanding that circumstances varied from region to region.  Flexibility was crucial.

He said he broadly supported the proposals related to marking and record-keeping.  In that context, the element of model national legislation needed clarification, given that States might already have adequate national laws.  Measures relating to the prevention of illicit diversion were important.  The issues related to brokering were also important and would have to be considered further in conjunction with the report of governmental experts, due to be issued next week.  

Mr. MOHAMMAD (Iraq) said the draft programme of action should take into account the general principles of the United Nations Charter.  It was imperative that those should appear at the beginning of the preamble, including the principle of non-interference of the internal affairs of States and the right to self-defence. 

He said it was difficult to set up international criteria for national legislatures without taking into account the special circumstances and conditions of each region and even of each State, including specific security and political considerations.

Mr. WYGANOWSKI (Poland) said that the language of the draft proposal should be precise and consistent with the General Assembly mandate.  Thus, some paragraphs required further elaboration.  In particular, the Committee should take advantage of the OSCE Document in reformulating certain paragraphs.  He had supported those delegations which had emphasized the importance of strong provisions on export controls and criteria and control over brokering activities.  Export criteria contained in the OSCE Document should be considered as a basis for the Committee’s work. 

He said he strongly supported transparency measures to help prevent diversion, but the wording of certain paragraphs required further work. Criminalizing arms embargo violations, as mentioned in section II, also had his strong support.  With respect to the preamble, he shared the view of many delegations that similar subjects should be combined and shortened.  Section I, or the preamble, could be coordinated with the draft objective document of the Conference.  The reference to regional initiatives and conferences could be included in an annex, rather than in the preamble, itself.

Mr. MC DOUGALL (Canada) said that the Committee should not approach its task today in fear of working without past precedent or of being too ambitious.  Members look to the future and set new precedents to find a workable solution to the serious problem of trade in illicit weapons.  Canada supported the broad approach presented in the Chairman’s draft proposed plan of action; narrow approaches, would not be effective.  He felt it was critical to consider tackling the problem of illicit arms trade from a disarmament, demobilization and reintegration perspective.  The plan of action should build on those principles and include them in the work of the conference.

Mr. YURI OCTAVIAN THAMRIN (Indonesia) said the Conference should address the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  A cautious attitude should be adopted in drafting a plan of action.  Although some paragraphs of section II appeared to call for new mechanisms to monitor and control the arms trade, it was important to remember that the Organization had a limited budget.  Existing mechanisms should not be duplicated.  The 2001 Conference should not be used to force a specific code of conduct.

Mr. ITZCHAKI (Israel) said the Committee should confine its work to the mandate of the 2001 Conference.  In some places, the language of section II appeared mandatory in nature -- more legal than political.  It was necessary to work to change such language to reflect  recommendations or guidelines.  It was also important not to undermine the efforts of other international fora or conventions by addressing legal issues.  All this, however, did not preclude the need for a succinct definition of small arms and light weapons.  At present, there was no agreed international definition.

Mr. LEE KIE-CHEON (Republic of Korea) said because of the complex nature of the small arms trade, the objectives and suggestions outlined in section II should be dealt with from disarmament and humanitarian perspectives.  The Committee could indeed develop effective and broad mechanisms acceptable to all delegations on the issue of transparency.

Ms. URIBE DE LONSANO (Colombia) said she agreed with numerous delegations that section II was the most important part of the draft plan of action.  It’s focus should therefore be on initiatives to be taken by States at local, national and regional levels.  The unification of norms and procedures would be enormously useful in combating arms trafficking.  Contrary to the opinion of some delegations, she believed that it might be possible to harmonize laws on illicit arms with those of international humanitarian law.  Finally, nothing proposed in section II of the draft seemed premature or ambitious, certainly not when one considered how long some countries had been dealing with the devastating effects of the illegal arms trade.

Mr. SHAFQAT ALI KHAN (Pakistan) said that given the complex nature of the problem, the temptation to move into other fields was understandable.  The Committee should strive, however, to curb such temptations.  The draft plan of action should be practical and focused and remain within the parameters set forth by the Assembly.  The plan of action should also be seen as the beginning, not as the overall cure to the myriad issues surrounding the illicit arms trade.  The Committee should also not lose sight of that fact that it had not been given the mandate to fashion a legal treaty.  The Committee should use caution when drafting the final language for section II.  The mandatory nature of much of that section’s terminology was surprising, particularly on the issue of transparency.  He added that it was imperative to establish a definition of small arms and light weapons.

Ms. VERVILLE (United States) said she was pleased that the text of section II contained many positive elements, particularly the language on stockpile management and arms destruction.  Her delegation was also pleased at the importance given the participation of civil society, as those organizations were essential in publicizing the issue.  That fact did not, however, remove the primary responsibility of governments.

There was a need to increase the focus on efforts aimed to enhance law enforcement and border controls, she said.  Increased bilateral exchanges of information should be considered.  The issue of transparence was important, but that principle should not extend to national holdings.  The Committee should stay within the Assembly’s mandate; expanding consideration to issues such as child solders endangered the Conference’s chances for success.  It appeared that the language of the proposed draft intended to create a legal obligation.  But the object of the plan of action should be to create political commitments to address the problems in all aspects, not to draft a treaty.  The text also gave primacy to global and United Nations measures to combat the illicit arms trade, while most of the strides that had been made were at the national and local levels.

She said that the Committee should ensure that where language of the Charter had been included, it should be accurately reflected, not paraphrased.  She noted her Government’s comprehensive laws for the marking of small arms and light weapons and expressed the desire to see a strong global standard on that practice accompanied by a binding legal instrument.  An international convention on tracing was premature.  Language should be developed that would criminalize violations of Security Council arms embargoes.

Mr. INACIO (Mozambique) said he joined the delegations of South Africa and Nigeria concerning the presentation by the Mali representative of the Bamako Declaration, which captured the thrust of the African common position on small

arms and light weapons.  He agreed with the Ghanaian delegation concerning the destruction of arms in post-conflict situations.  It was extremely important to ensure a strong and clear commitment, by all parties involved in a peace process, to the collection and destruction of arms.

ALFRED MOUNGARA-MOUSSOTSI (Gabon) said he endorsed the Bamako Declaration and was satisfied also with the proposed draft action plan.  The provision of financial and technical assistance for national mechanisms to combat the illicit small arms trade and to destroy those weapons was essential.  It was also crucial to discourage the transfer of illicit weapons to unstable zones.  The recommendations contained in Section II were ambitious and presumptuous.  Although they should be “radical” in nature, they also needed to be realistic.  For some recommendations, considerable finances were required.  Resolving conflicts would significantly reduce the illicit arms trade.

* *** *