Preparatory Committee for the

United Nations Conference on

 The Illicit Trade in Small Arms

 And Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

18^th Meeting (AM)

PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR JULY CONFERENCE ON ILLICIT SMALL ARMS TRADE

CONCLUDES WEEK-LONG CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT PROGRAMME OF ACTION

Moving ahead too fast on an international proposal to combat the illicit small arms trade was unwise, the Preparatory Committee for the July United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects was told this morning, as it concluded its consideration of the Chairman’s proposed draft programme of action.

Committee members, meeting through 19 January for the second of three preparatory sessions, were asked by the General Assembly to recommend to the United Nations Conference a draft agenda, draft objectives, draft rules of procedure and final documents, including an action plan and perhaps a political declaration.  The Conference, the first since 1987, will be held in New York.

The representative of Libya said the Preparatory Committee for the Conference should not break ground, but should evolve a realistic action plan to combat the scourge.  An overly ambitious document would steep the Committee in a mental exercise and not produce the desired results.  Several mechanisms had been proposed, but at such an early stage of setting up the process, it was not possible to reach agreement on the list of mechanisms or envisage ways to apply them.

Similarly, the Algerian representative said that formulating a follow-up to the Conference was premature.  Patience might be the way forward.  Members could wait until things had crystallized in order to see the way more clearly.  A decision on follow-up, such as a five-year review conference, could be taken at the July Conference.  Setting up a follow-up mechanism now might burden several countries.  On the other hand, a financing mechanism should be set up promptly to enable States to devise national plans to combat the small arms phenomenon.

Would adoption of a final document make the small arms problem “disappear magically”? the representative of India asked.  Clearly, different regional initiatives had incorporated their own unique needs, and developed mechanisms to implement them.  Those should certainly not be subjected to a review at the disarmament Conference.  Rather, the success of regional measures should be encouraged.  An overall follow-up mechanism should flow from agreements reached at the Conference.

On the other hand, the representative or Colombia said it was essential to provide follow-up to the July Conference.  Indeed, there should be ongoing follow-up, including conferences on a regular basis to assess implementation of the action plan.  There should also be immediate follow-up actions at the national level.  In that regard, States should be urged to set up national coordinating bodies within relevant infrastructures to monitor the proliferation, control, circulation, trade, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.  Her own country had established an inter-institutional group to carry out those tasks.

Upon the conclusion of the discussion of section IV of the draft action plan, the Chairman suggested that the remaining time could be best spent taking stock of the Committee’s work.

A discussion followed in which delegations welcomed the Committee’s thorough read of the substance of the proposal, and noted that it had come a long way towards formalizing the draft.  Views had been illuminated; “food for thought” had been offered.  There was general anticipation of the participation next week by non-governmental organizations, credited with so much work in the field.  

The Chairman said he shared the satisfaction of delegations in terms of the progress made during the week.  He suggested a preliminary proposal for next week’s organization of work, which he would submit on Monday morning.

The following representatives participated in that discussion:  Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), United States, Canada, Lesotho, Syria, Cuba, Philippines, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Yemen, Algeria, Ghana and Libya. 

Statements on the proposed draft text were also made by the representatives of Nigeria, Argentina, Solomon Islands, Indonesia, Egypt, Ghana, Pakistan, Japan, Cuba, Iraq, Peru, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Philippines and Sri Lanka.

The Preparatory Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Monday, 15 January, to consider its organization of work for the week.

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 conclude 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 conclude consideration of section IV of the draft proposal, on implementation and follow-up and is then expected to move into a discussion of its programme of work for the remainder of the session.  (For background, see Press Release DC/2734 of 5 January and DC/2736 of

9 January.)

Consideration of Section IV

SOLA OGUBANWO (Nigeria) said it was his delegation’s expectation that the end of the Committee’s work would produce a final document, including a plan of action and a political declaration.  That would form the basis of what measures were to be implemented following the outcome of the 2001 Conference.  He urged the Committee to attempt to tone down the mandatory language of section IV.  He also felt there should be a greater emphasis on the work that had already begun in curbing the illicit trade in small arms.  It was necessary for that section of the proposed plan of action to focus on initiatives taken at the national level.

SANTIAGO VILLALBA (Argentina) said that the action plan would be aimed at efforts that were already underway at national, regional and subregional levels.  Those efforts would not be successful, however, unless they were not viewed in conjunction with proposed global measures.  Global action would be the “final leg of the table.”  Therefore, the section should be developed with that in mind.

JEREMIAH MANELE (Solomon Islands) speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum Group, introduced a conference document on Small Arms and Light Weapons: Interests and Involvement of Pacific Island Forum Countries (A/CONF.192/PC/24). That document, he said, was intended to provide an overview of the interests and involvement of the Pacific Island Forum countries in addressing the problems posed by small arms and light weapons.  It showed that those associated countries had been actively addressing the issue for several years and had made, among other things, considerable progress towards the development of a common regional approach to weapons control, known as the “Nadi Framework”.

He went on to say that the Group’s leaders had recently agreed to develop model legislation to facilitate implementation and enforcement of the common regional approach to weapons control.  In addition to providing an update on the interests and involvement of the Group in those issues, he hoped that the document would provide a useful illustration of the effectiveness of approaches that had been tailor-made to address specific regional concerns.  The delegation also hoped the document would contribute to the Committee's broader efforts to develop coordinated international action to address problems posed by the illicit trade in small arms.

YURI THAMRIN (Indonesia) drew attention to the close link between sections II and IV.  He said the Conference should not create a new and burdensome bureaucracy.  Insisting on an elaborate mechanism without consensus was a futile exercise.  He would support a mechanism in the form of a review conference to assess implementation of the action programme.  The time for such a review need not be decided at the July Conference.  Rather, it could be decided by Member States in the First Committee (Disarmament and General Assembly).  After all, the reason for the present meeting had originated in that Committee. 

ABDELKADER MESDOUA (Algeria) said that determining a follow-up to the Conference might be premature at present.  Perhaps there could be a review conference five years later.  Patience might be the way forward; members could wait until things had crystallized in order to see the way more clearly.  Any decision along those lines could be taken at the July Conference.  Setting up a mechanism now might well have a negative effect, and suggesting a number of mechanisms might be burdensome on several countries.

He said that combating the scourge was very sensitive, requiring a most effective and efficient strategy underpinned by concrete and practical measures coordinated by well-considered international efforts.  That was what should be done to end that global scourge.  Existing mechanisms could be used, which could focus on the need to improve information exchanges between various bodies and organizations, aimed at the networks and chains involved in the illicit small arms trade.  The new mechanism that should be promptly set up should focus on the financing for States that required it.  That would enable them to set up their own national plans to combat the small arms phenomenon.

SHAHDAT HOSSAIN (Bangladesh), speaking on behalf of Ambassador Anwarul Karim Chowdhury, said that the illicit trafficking and transfer of small arms and their accumulation seriously threatened the populations of many countries, as well as national and regional security.  That had also gravely destabilized States.  The United Nations could and should play an important role in collecting and disseminating information on such illicit trafficking.  It should also promote and facilitate greater transparency in relation to small arms transfers and holdings.

He said there was an urgent need for practical action and continued support for emerging initiatives.  The adoption of a worthwhile programme of action in July identifying practical measures would greatly contribute to a secure and peaceful world.  In the preambular section of the proposed text, the language was too prescriptive and, in some cases, encroached upon the sovereignty of States.  The Committee was urged to review the matter and revisit the contents, so that concerns of States were correctly reflected.

Continuing, he said that States should reserve the right of procuring weapons for self-defence.  Regarding the marking of small arms and light weapons, that should be done at the time of manufacture.  That would make it possible to trace the movements of those arms, which would eventually help maintain transparency and information exchange.  A model national legislation should be developed for those countries that had not yet done so.  Member States should be cautious about proposing additional commitments, in order not to burden the world body with financial obligations. 

Concerning section III of the draft, international assistance relating to small arms should be provided to those countries that needed it.  International awareness should be raised on the menace of small arms, in order to educate younger generations on a culture of peace.  That would represent a leap towards realizing global efforts in the small arms field.  On section IV, States must not be overburdened with too many “bureaucratic formalities”.  Rather, efforts should be made to simplify the existing efficient methods for monitoring small arms.  He supported advocacy at the global level to prevent the proliferation and trafficking of those weapons. 

ISMAIL KHAIRAT (Egypt) said section VI was very ambitious, in its present form, appeared far from implementable.  His delegation looked with concern at the broad recommendations outlined in the draft.  He urged that the Committee follow closely the General Assembly’s mandate when finalizing the language for this section of the action plan.

RAKESH SOOD (India) asked whether the adoption of a final document would make the small arms problem “disappear magically”.  Clearly, different regional initiatives had incorporated their own specificities, along with mechanisms to implement them.  Were those going to be subjected to a review at the international Conference?  Certainly not.  The Conference should not impose burdens on those regional initiatives.  Rather, those should be encouraged to succeed, to the extent possible. 

He said that a follow-up mechanism should flow from agreements taken at the disarmament Conference.  He was not at all enthusiastic for follow-up in three or four years, if it was to be merely listening to the developments of different regions.  There were much more economical ways to obtain that information in today’s age.  The agreements reached in the programme of action would determine the extent to which a follow-up mechanism was needed.  

RAMADAN A. BARG (Libya) said he was somewhat perplexed about section IV.  What exactly was the purpose of that section?  Some had said that it was overly ambitious.  Although he was not against ambition, he had not wished to exaggerate.  If the document was going to be ambitious, yet not achieve practical results, then the Committee was involving itself in a “mental exercise that would not get anywhere”.  A considerable number of mechanisms had been proposed in that section.  At the present early stage, it was not possible to reach agreement on that list of mechanisms. 

In other words, he went on, agreement on such mechanisms would not make it easy to apply them.  Perhaps members were moving forward a bit too fast.  Before taking a final decision, agreement should be reached on the elements contained in the document, in particular in section II, as that would determine the contents of section IV.  All he could accept today was the need to consolidate international and regional efforts, as well as a focus on the role of the international community to strengthen those efforts.  Moving ahead too fast was unwise.  The Committee should not be breaking ground at the present stage.  The goal should be to devise realistic document that would help achieve the desired results. 

YAW OSEI (Ghana) highlighted the importance of the Bamako Declaration in the Committee’s deliberation.  Any immediate follow-up action should be aimed at building on initiatives already underway at the regional, national and local levels.  Moreover, any global mechanisms should have the ability to monitor the implementation of the outcome of the 2001 Conference at national and regional levels.  He urged that the Committee give particular consideration to mechanisms aimed at developing legal and technical initiatives to stem the flow of illegal arms at the regional level.

JAVED IQBAL (Pakistan) said it might perhaps be too early to agree on realistic follow-up mechanisms without further discussion on the other elements of the plan of action.  Discussing the creation of ad hoc committees or establishing reporting mechanisms at this time would also be premature.  The Committee should also be wary when considering the inclusion of the outcome of the current deliberations on the draft protocol on firearms currently underway in Vienna.  There was a clear difference in the scope of mandates for the two respective endeavors, he said.

TSUNOMU ARAI (Japan) said it was necessary to enhance and facilitate the implementation of the action plan.  The aim of the Conference should first and foremost be to encourage national, regional and subregional efforts already being undertaken and to incorporate the mechanisms under consideration today in that important work.  That would only enhance those initiatives and ensure that the Conference would be an important step in the evolution in global efforts to address the proliferation of illicit small arms.  His delegation supported a thorough review of the implementation of the outcome of the Conference and, therefore, Member States should be urged to submit reports outlining their implementation efforts, perhaps on a yearly basis.  His delegation agreed that a follow-up United Nations conference in five years would be useful.

RODOLFO ELISEO BENITEZ VERSON (Cuba) recalled his delegation's earlier statement that the Committee should not put much emphasis on section IV, since its final recommendations could only be shaped after the others sections had been finalized.  He did not support the establishment of new mechanisms where proven international initiatives already existed.  Indeed, those mechanisms recommended in section IV appeared premature and overly ambitious.

MOHAMMED H. MOHAMMED (Iraq) supported the statement made by Jordan, on behalf of the League of Arab States made earlier, during the Committee's consideration of section IV.  Turning to the section itself, he said that the language therein should conform to the General Assembly’s mandate for the Conference.  It was premature at this time to consider setting up working groups to explore specific aspects of the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.

RAUL SALAZAR COSIO (Peru) said one way of expediting the work of the Committee would be to comprehensively explore all recommendations proposed in section IV.  Concise but effective follow-up measures should be considered.  He highlighted the need to place some emphasis on the role of the main players in the arms trade -- suppliers and manufacturers.  It was also crucial to focus on national and regional aspects of the problem.

FRANCOIS OUBIDA (Burkina Faso) said it was necessary to create a coherent consensus document in line with the objectives set for organizing the

2001 Conference.  Therefore, section IV was very important to the heart of the Committee’s work.  After all, what would be the need for a Conference if there were no comprehensive measures in place to monitor efforts to put its goals into practice?  The Committee must be imaginative, but prudent in its deliberations. He said it was also important to explore the notion of establishing information centres to facilitate and enhance the flow of information between States on their experiences as they attempted to address the serious problem of the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.

ANA MARIA SAMPAIO (Brazil) strongly supported the idea that States should begin putting into practice the proposed action plan’s recommendations as soon as the plan was agreed upon.  While she was satisfied that her region had already developed adequate measures to tackle the problem of the illicit weapons trade, those efforts should be supported by global action.  In order to take advantage of the session’s current negotiations, it would be necessary to discuss the form and focus of any Assembly ad hoc committee created to study the problem of the illicit weapons trade.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) believed that is was not only important to implement the outcome of the 2001 Conference, but also to follow up on the recommendations and objectives agreed upon.  His delegation supported the creation of an ad hoc mechanism and coordination at the global level.  It was hoped, however, that much of the focus of such a mechanism would be aimed at national and regional activities.  It was also important to comprehensively devise and formulate the goals of any working groups and how their work would coordinate with the proposed ad hoc committee.

DHARSHANA PERERA (Sri Lanka) said that a periodic review of implementation was particularly important.  As such, he had attached great importance to some of the paragraphs in section IV of the draft text.  He would deliver more specific comments at a later date.

GARCIELA URIBE DE LOZANA (Colombia) said that it was essential to provide follow-up to the July Conference.  Indeed, there should be an ongoing follow-up mechanism including the convening of conferences on a regular basis to assess implementation of the action plan.   There should also be immediate follow-up actions at the national level.  In that regard, States should be urged to set up national coordinating bodies within a relevant infrastructure to monitor the proliferation, control, circulation, trade, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.  Her own country had established an inter-institutional group to carry out those tasks.

Upon the conclusion of the discussion of sections IV of the draft action plan, the CHAIRMAN said that perhaps the remaining time could be best spent taking stock of the Committee’s work.

The following representatives participated in that discussion:  Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), United States, Canada, Lesotho, Syria, Cuba, Philippines, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Yemen, Algeria, Ghana and Libya. 

Most delegations welcomed the Committee’s “thorough run” of the substance of the proposal and noted that it had come a long way towards formalizing the draft action programme.  Views had been illuminated; “food for thought” had been offered.  There was general anticipation of the addresses to be made next week by non-governmental organizations, credited with so much work on the subject on the ground.  Several delegations agreed on the need to maintain momentum; many sought a revised text by the Chairman. 

The Chairman said he shared the satisfaction of delegations in terms of the progress made during the week.  He credited that progress to the constructive way in which delegations decided to participate.  He suggested a preliminary proposal for next week’s organization of work, which he would submit on Monday morning.  That had included taking a formal decision on the participation of non-governmental organizations and representatives of United Nations agencies. 

He said that time would also be allowed for a discussion of a draft political declaration.  The end of the week would be devoted to consideration and adoption of the report of the Committee.  In terms of a revised proposal, he would take time to digest the “very rich” contributions made by members, and submit an initial advanced copy in English during the inter-sessional period.

* *** *