Preparatory Committee for the

United Nations Conference on

 the Illicit Trade in Small Arms

 and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

17^th Meeting (PM)

SPEAKERS STRESS CIVIL SOCIETY’S KEY ROLE IN CONTROL OF SMALL ARMS TRADE,

AS DEBATE CONTINUES IN PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR JULY CONFERENCE

Human security was at stake in the proliferation of small arms and light weapons and, as the main victims of that scourge, civil society and its organizations should be awarded a key role in the process, the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects was told this afternoon, as it continued its consideration of a proposed draft action programme.

The Committee, meeting through 19 January for the second of three preparatory sessions, was mandated by the General Assembly to recommend to the 2001 small arms Conference a draft agenda, draft objectives, draft rules of procedure, and final documents, which will include a programme of action.  The Conference will be held in New York from 9 to 20 July.

The representative of Norway added that civil society should be at the centre of the development of a culture in which conflicts were resolved without resorting to the use of small arms and light weapons.  Local actions to combat the illicit arms trade were key.  The numerous civil society groups had their local, national and regional expressions and were coherent actors at all levels.  Thus, they should play a more active role in the implementation of the action plan. 

Indeed, the role of non-governmental actors was paramount in combating the scourge of the illicit arms trade, the representative of Malaysia emphasized. Those had a vital role to play in curbing the spread of small arms and light weapons.  Their wealth of experience and expertise in that area could contribute constructively to broadening the scope of the discussion.  A classic example of their significant contribution in disarmament field was the Ottawa Convention against landmines, for which they urged adherence by more than 100 countries.

The representative of Canada said that the follow-up process to the Conference should fully reflect the multi-faceted nature of the small arms problem and engage the broad spectrum of national, regional and global actors.  That process should be refined, so as to harness the creative energies of all concerned.  That meant a lean and flexible organizational structure.  A follow-up process or body involving all interested parties could be established to ensure that its work was carried forward on a collective and comprehensive basis.

Similarly, the South African representative sought agreement on a structured follow-up procedure.  The Conference -- which was the beginning of a process, and not a resolution -- should encourage States, as well as regional and subregional groups, to implement the action plan in a timely and comprehensive manner.  States should set up mechanisms to enhance transparency and information exchange. Measures of implementation and follow-up should be of an evolving nature that allowed for changing circumstances.  The language should be less mandatory and emphasize the political aspects of the Conference.

The representative of Mozambique insisted that international cooperation and assistance were of great importance for the eradication of the illicit arms trade, not only because of the global nature of the problem, but because the most affected countries often lacked financial and technical resources.  The collection and destruction of weapons was a daunting task requiring a tremendous financial commitment, which many affected countries could not afford.  African nations had, therefore, called for a global partnership to curb the illicit proliferation, circulation and trafficking of those weapons.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Iraq, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Cuba, Syria, Kenya, Jordan (also on behalf of the League of Arab States), Algeria, Russian Federation, Nepal, Brazil, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), China, Lithuania, Australia, and the United States.

The Preparatory Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Friday, 12 January, to continue its consideration of the third and fourth sections 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 afternoon 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 conclude consideration of section III of the draft proposal, and begin its preliminary consideration of section IV, on implementation and follow-up.  (For background, see Press Releases DC/2734 of

5 January and DC/2736 of 9 January.)

Consideration of Section III

BENNIE J. LOMBARD (South Africa) said that, in order to ensure that initiatives based on the identified measures prescribed in the first two sections of the draft were met, it might be necessary to consider strengthening language on destroying surplus arms and providing assistance for demobilization and reintegration.  He had no sure indication as to whether section III needed to take a general or specific approach to developing international cooperation and assistance measures.  The Bamako Declaration would be helpful if the Committee chose a general approach.  But, if a specific approach was considered, the language used in section III needed to be strengthened, particularly paragraphs on technical assistance, stockpile management and assistance for law enforcement agencies.

Turning to section IV on implementation and follow-up measures, JEAN PHILIP DU PREEZ (South Africa) said the Conference should be the beginning of examining a problem, and not the end result.  In that regard, any agreed follow-up measures should be workable, achievable and not too ambitious.  The Committee should closely monitor cost issues.  Language used in follow-up actions should not have a mandatory tone, but should be political in nature.  He added that the Conference should agree to a structured follow-up procedure.  States, along with regional and subregional actors, should be encouraged to undertake the outcome of the Conference in a timely manner.  It would also be important for States to actively seek timely exchanges of information and create the appropriate infrastructure to implement the programme of action.

MOHAMMAD AL-HUMAIMIDI (Iraq) said the very title of section III, “international cooperation and assistance”, made it the most important section of the draft.  It was well known, he said, that cooperation and good faith in ensuring international stability were at the heart of the Committee’s work.  It was strange, then, that the section only contained a few paragraphs, while other issues that fell outside the scope of the Conference had been given much more consideration.

RAKESH SOOD (India) said section III was an integral part of the final document. Simply because it was possible to deal with the trade in illicit weapons through national or regional means did not mean there was no need to address measures aimed at international cooperation.  It was, after all, an international problem and could only be solved through international cooperation. 

Section II, he continued, should urge cooperation among the different United Nations agencies and international organizations that dealt with illicit trafficking.  That would strengthen cooperation norms.  To move further, the section should incorporate the recommendations of sections II and IV of the draft proposal.  The Committee should be aware that assistance was a reflection of international cooperation.  It was, of course, the responsibility of the international community to step in, when countries lacked the resources to deal with the problem.

YURI THAMRIN (Indonesia) said section III should be developed further, particularly in the area of capacity-building.  His delegation also believed that the needs of States in which conflict had ended should also be considered.

ANGELICA ARCE DE JEANNET (Mexico) said that it was necessary to redraft the contents of section III because it was first necessary to mobilize resources for the recommendations highlighted in section II.  There was a general need to define the requirements for assistance to States.  He reiterated that section III should support the implementation of the commitments required under section II.

GUNNAR LINDEMAN (Norway) said since members of civil society were the main victims of the illicit trade in arms, the language of the section should be strengthened to highlight the importance of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  Human security was at stake and local actions and initiatives were key.  Civil society and NGOs should be given a more prominent role in the implementation of the plan of action.  Those organizations should also be involved in advocacy programmes and awareness building, as well as the implementation of disarmament and rehabilitation projects. 

He went on to say that section III should highlight the need for more cooperation between civil society and law enforcement organizations.  Civil society should be at the centre of the development of a culture in which conflicts were resolved without resorting to the use of small arms and light weapons. 

Non-governmental organizations had the pulse of their own specific local, national or regional areas and were, therefore, coherent actors at all levels.  The proposed text should be strengthened in that regard. 

RODOLFO ELISEO BENITEZ VERSON (Cuba) said the brevity of the section was out of character with the consideration given the draft’s other sections.  In spite of its title, it hardly dealt with international assistance at all.  It should be strongly stated that States with more resources and greater capacities should be called upon to give financial and technical assistance to those that lacked the capacity to deal with the problem of the illicit arms trade.  Issues such as protracted conflicts, drug trafficking and terrorism should also be reflected.  At a minimum, there should be a commitment on the part of States not to adopt measures that would prevent or obstruct the transfer of technology that would curb the flow of illicit small arms.  The role of the United Nations system should not be overlooked, particularly as regards the Organization’s capacity to identify countries or regions in immediate need of assistance.

SHAFQAT ALI KHAN (Pakistan) said the section should stress that assistance should be provided to regions and States most affected by the problems associated with the illicit arms trade.  It should be redrafted to reflect the international community’s commitment to providing assistance and cooperation in monitoring the illicit arms trade.  He also shared the view that the Committee should be careful when considering participation of intergovernmental organizations such as the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol).

HAYDAR ALI AHMAD (Syria) said section III should be more accurate in determining the parameters of cooperation and assistance on the international level.  The section should stress the notion of providing such assistance in accordance with a specific request by the countries concerned.  It was also necessary to take sensitive aspects of international cooperation into account.  Should States be required to cooperate with other States acting in a manner that defied the principles of the United Nations Charter? he asked.  He added that while NGOs did have a role to play in establishing measures on international cooperation, it was necessary not to confuse that role with that of governments.

MARX G.N. KAHENDE (Kenya) said the Bamako Declaration outlined measures for international cooperation and assistance.  Some subregional initiatives had advanced to stages of near implementation, and the Committee should take those into consideration.  His delegation welcomed paragraphs on financial assistance, but there should be more recognition of training measures.  Technical training measures were an urgent and immediate need in many of the war-torn regions of Africa.  Section III should also address the reintegration of ex-combatants into society.  International cooperation to comprehensively address issues such as poverty, greed and bad governance could go a long way towards not only stemming the flow of illegal arms, but eliminating the demand. 

RAMEZ GOUSSOUS (Jordan) said he supported the elements contained in

section III and emphasized the importance of organizing financial and technical assistance to control illicit arms trafficking.  Section III should more precisely address the problems of the countries directly affected by the illicit trade.  Civil society and NGOs should be supported in that field.  At the same time, the development of the effective implementation of measures related to the small arms problem should be the sole prerogative of the national competent authorities of sovereign States.  The Bamako Declaration on the illicit small arms trade, which was the outcome of the recent Ministerial Conference of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), was worth considering during the current preparatory session.

SAAD MAANDI (Algeria) said that promoting international cooperation to cope with the illicit arms trade should be one of the main goals, if not the primary goal, of the Conference.  That event could not possibly prove effective unless it received international cooperation and coordinated action.  That would enable the global community to come to grips with the illegal trade, at the global level and between States.  Dealing effectively with the web of trading that funnelled illegal weapons to international terrorists and others must be supported by financial aid to those States trying to devise action to fight that scourge.

The Bamako Declaration was an appropriate basis upon which international action could be built.

He said that fighting illicit trafficking must not be confined solely to the collection and destruction of such weapons.  While that should be done, the global community must also strive to uncover the root causes of the use of those weapons.  Effective cooperation must be based on pooling efforts within national communities, particularly in States producing such weapons. 

ALEKSANDER A. ORLOV (Russian Federation) said that States must handle the problem directly.  Those States that independently prevented or ended the widespread illegal trade and had an interest in doing so, and sought international aid, should receive it.  The responsibility for stemming the illicit trade fell on all States.  Indeed, countries themselves must resolve the problems associated with the illicit trade.  At the same time, some global and regional machinery should be created.

HIRA THAPA (Nepal) said he wished to reiterate the need to expand

section III.  Financial and technical assistance to States was needed to build the capacity crucial to combating the illicit trade and its effects.  Coping with that problem could be enhanced in a number of ways, including an offer of financial and technical assistance to States aimed at remedying the root causes of conflicts.  By helping States meet the challenges of poverty, underdevelopment and insecurity, optimal use would be made of assistance to States bearing the brunt of the illicit small arms trade.  An appropriate reference should be made to eradicating the causes of conflicts.

ANA MARIA SAMPAIO (Brazil) said that international cooperation was a key element in efforts to eliminate the destabilizing and excessive accumulation of the illegal small arms trade.  As the Brasilia Declaration had stated, the 2001 Conference should seek to strengthen international cooperation in all its aspects –- judicial, technical, financial and between law enforcement agencies.  It should also ensure that the mechanisms established benefited all affected regions, subregions, and countries.

REZA RAJA ZAIB SHAH (Malaysia) said that the role of non-governmental actors was paramount in combating the scourge of the illicit arms trade.   Those had a vital role to play in combating and curbing the spread of small arms and light weapons.  Their wealth of experience and expertise in that area could contribute constructively to broadening the scope of the discussion.  A classic example of the significant role of NGOs in the disarmament field was the Ottawa Convention against landmines, for which they encouraged adherence by more than 100 States.

LEE KIE-CHEON (Republic of Korea) said he attached great importance to a further elaboration of section III.  The section should be better organized and “fleshed out”, given its importance.  Regarding assistance, the capacity of certain countries in need should be reinforced through training, including in “traceability”, and measures to facilitate the reintegration of ex-combatants. With respect to cooperation, coordination among law enforcement agencies and customs officials was crucial.  An international organization should be set up to harmonize administrative controls.

ANTONIO INACIO (Mozambique) said that section III needed further improvement.  International cooperation and assistance was of great importance for the eradication of the illicit arms trade, not only because of the global nature of the problem, but because the most affected countries often lacked financial and technical resources.  The representatives of Nigeria and Gabon had rightly pointed out that the collection and destruction of weapons was a daunting task requiring a tremendous financial commitment that those affected countries could not afford it.  Africa had, thus, called for an international partnership to curb the illicit proliferation, circulation and trafficking of those weapons.  The language of the section should be strengthened and could be based on the Bamako Declaration.

DHARSHANA PERERA (Sri Lanka) said that section III was an integral part of the plan of action. Therefore, there was an urgent need to strengthen its language to more effectively deal with the problem of the illicit trade.  The scope of the section needed to be broadened, particularly in the area of capacity-building. There was also a need to sensitize officials and authorities engaged in arms manufacture and trade to the scope of the problem of illicit arms trafficking.

Consideration of Section IV, Follow-up and Implementation

SUNE DANIELSSON (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said follow-up meetings to the 2001 Conference should provide places for participants to discuss the outcome of the conference.  In order to ensure implementation and follow-up of the Conference commitments, a follow-up session should be convened in 2005.  Relevant organizations should submit reports at appropriate intervals.  A committee should also be established to prepare for the follow-up conference.  He also said that NGOs should participate broadly in the follow-up process.  In light of those suggestions, he said that the section as a whole should also be refashioned so that its overall focus could be clarified.

ROBERT McDOUGALL (Canada) said adequate mechanisms for follow-up would be crucial for the credibility of the 2001 Conference and for the long-term effectiveness of the action plan.  To that end, any follow-up approach should integrate four functions:  implementation, coordination, review, and evolution.  The follow-up process would need to reflect the full nature of the small arms problem, the full range of elements raised in the action plan, and the need to engage pertinent national, regional and global actors.

He went on to say that the follow-up process should be truly “user-friendly” and favour an inclusive forum for the exchange of information on progress and problems, while promoting and facilitating effective concrete action.  He urged the Committee to leave room for the follow-up process to refine itself, so as to bring forth the creative energies of all concerned.  It should, therefore, have a lean, flexible organizational structure.

Mr. LINDEMAN (Norway) said national and regional activities would be crucial to the implementation of the plan of action.  Existing global mechanisms should be considered, while incorporating local and regional initiatives.  In many cases, post-conflict rehabilitation should be considered.  He reiterated the crucial role to be played by civil society in monitoring and reviewing progress in the implementation of the outcome of the 2001 Conference.  He recommended that a review process in which lessons learned would be included be established at a later date.

WU HAITAO (China) said a follow-up mechanism, with the expressed purpose of reviewing implementation efforts, should be established at the conclusion of the Conference.  No new mechanisms should be established before a review of post-Conference implementation efforts.  Follow-up and review should specifically help countries most affected by the illicit trade in small arms.  Before discussing specific measures, it would be necessary to identify the purpose of a follow-up mechanism.

Mr. GOUSSOUS (Jordan), speaking on behalf of the League of Arab States, reaffirmed the Arab position that the 2001 Conference was a first step towards

tackling a very important subject.  It was his view that the realistic hopes of the international community could be reflected in the outcome. Overall insistence on such an ambitious plan of action might not serve the proposed objectives of the Conferences.  The Committee should remain cognizant of the fact that its aims were not to negotiate the preparation of international treaties or legal agreements.

VACLOVAS SEMASKEVICIUS (Lithuania) supported the idea of holding a follow-up conference, but not the immediate establishment of an ad hoc mechanism.  It was also important to establish reporting procedures.  The present definition of small arms and light weapons should be more focused.

BRONTË MOULES (Australia) supported the idea of a coordinated and consolidated follow-up and implementation programme.  Such a programme should review the implementation of the action plan while allowing for ongoing study and evaluation of the outcome of the 2001 Conference.

Mr. ALI AHMAD (Syria) drew the Committee’s attention to the importance of creating follow-up measures that were fully realized, but which could be comprehensively implemented.  The issue of the illicit trade in small arms should also not be viewed as a new one.  Thus, it was important to take into account the initiatives already under way by relevant United Nations agencies and bodies.  The Committee should also be aware that new measures should be drafted only after thorough review of the implementation process.  

ELIZABETH VERVILLE (United States) agreed with other delegations that the establishment of an international follow-up mechanism was important. She believed, however, that since the major focus of activities aimed at stemming the flow of illicit arms had been and should continue to be at national and regional levels, global initiatives should be of a complementary nature.  The Committee should also be wary of creating new and expensive measures without being aware of the need for them. 

As written, she continued, the language of section IV appeared burdensome, rather than facilitative.  It called for a number of successive meetings, working groups and conferences, some which would overlap international events previously planned by the Organization.  Such a large number of meetings could also be viewed as onerous requirements for some States.  It could be seen as “too much too soon”, and there should be time allowed for the action plan to naturally progress.  A review conference convened in the conventional way –- perhaps in five years -- would be the best way to achieve the goals of a comprehensive follow-up mechanism.

* *** *