DISARMAMENT COMMISSION BEGINS THREE-WEEK HEADQUARTERS SESSION, WITH FOCUS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, CONVENTIONAL ARMS

Disarmament Commission

2001 Substantive Session

242^nd Meeting (AM)

DISARMAMENT COMMISSION BEGINS THREE-WEEK HEADQUARTERS SESSION,

WITH FOCUS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, CONVENTIONAL ARMS

Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Opens Session,

Stresses ‘Particularly Demanding’ Challenge of Nuclear Disarmament

The awesome social, economic and environmental costs resulting from the production of nuclear weapons would pale compared to those that would arise if a nuclear war would occur, thus making the challenge of nuclear disarmament particularly demanding.   Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, told the Disarmament Commission this morning.

Speaking as the Commission began its 2001 substantive session, Mr. Dhanapala said progress towards achieving every goal of the United Nations Charter tacitly assumed the non-occurrence of such a war.  The States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) agreed last year that the challenge could not be met by a set of half measures and that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of such weapons.  They took a positive step in that direction by making an “unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament”. 

Even though the last decade had not been a time of nuclear war, he added, it had been a time of devastating bloodshed involving the use of an ever-expanding variety of conventional arms.  By some estimates, more than 5 million people had been killed in armed conflicts during the post-cold war era.  Armed exports to many highly unstable regions were on the rise and the phenomenon of the illicit traffic in small arms had grown from a regional problem to a crisis of global dimensions.  It was, therefore, highly appropriate that the Commission should again focus its attention on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms. 

Following her election as the Commission’s first female Chairperson, Diane Quarless (Jamaica) said that the year 2000 should be remembered for significant events that infused a new spirit into the dialogue on the maintenance of international peace and security and renewed the collective commitment to both nuclear and conventional non-proliferation and disarmament.  However, within the context of what remained to be done, those events represented perhaps only a crack in the opening of a door.

What was important, she continued, was that the door had opened.  Work must now be done to ensure that the expressed good intentions would ultimately be transformed into demonstrable action.  In the field of international peace and security, where the dividends to be gained through dialogue were immeasurable, the contribution of the Commission should not be undervalued. 

Speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, Sweden's representative said that the Commission's work regarding the ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament should build on the agreement reached at last year's NPT Review Conference.  It was important, therefore, that the report of the current year's deliberations adhered, as far as possible, to the agreed language in the Final Document of the NPT Review Conference.

He hoped that discussions in the Commission's current session would lead to concrete and comprehensive recommendations in the field of "practical confidence- building measures in the field of conventional arms", which should be designed to make progress in strengthening confidence and security and in achieving disarmament, so as to build an environment of cooperative security.

Unfortunately, said the representative of Brazil, there were still “distressing signs” in the field of nuclear disarmament.  Recent events could hardly be catalogued as being the ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament. One year after the NPT Review Conference and six months after the Millennium Summit, little political will had been shown to ensure that the commitments agreed upon at those occasions in the area of nuclear disarmament would be implemented.  Unilateral measures that could lead to a change in strategic stability might trigger an arms race, or the proliferation of nuclear defence shields, he added.

Also this morning, the Commission elected Henrik Salander (Sweden), Niklas Lindqvist (Finland), Yurii Onishchenko (Ukraine) and Martha Beatriz Lopez de Mitre (Bolivia) as Vice-Chairpersons.  It also took note of its provisional agenda and programme of work for the current session. 

Statements were also made by the representatives of Mexico, Belarus, Algeria and Argentina.

The Commission will meet again at 3 p.m. today to continue its general exchange of views.

Background

The Disarmament Commission met this morning to begin its substantive session for 2001 and its general debate.

Statements

Following her election as Chairperson of the Commission, DIANE QUARLESS (Jamaica) said that the year 2000 should be remembered for the significant events that infused a new spirit into the dialogue on the maintenance of international peace and security and renewed the collective commitment to both nuclear and conventional non-proliferation and disarmament.  Among them was the Review Conference of the Treaty on the  Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which secured an important undertaking from the nuclear weapon States for the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.  Unquestionably, within the context of what remained to be done, those events represented perhaps only a crack in the opening of a door.  The universality in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament had yet to be achieved.  The early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was still sought, as was reaching agreement to begin negotiation on a fissile material cut-off treaty.

What was important, she continued, was that the door had opened.  Work must now be done collectively and diligently to ensure that expressed good intentions would ultimately be transformed into demonstrable action.  In that effort, the Commission had an integral role to play.  The Commission, by its mandate and working methods, was uniquely placed as the only universal organ, that promoted deliberation, negotiation and consensus-building towards strengthening the framework for the enhancement of international peace and security.

Its focus on no more than three items over a three-year period allowed for a fuller exchange, in which issues were fleshed out and every position was heard, she said.  It allowed time to explore areas of convergence and to pursue what was incrementally possible.  In the field of international peace and security, where the dividends to be gained through dialogue were immeasurable, the contribution of the Commission should not be undervalued. 

Commenting on the work of the session, she said that Working Group I, mandated to explore the item "ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament", examined the relevant issues and developments in the area of nuclear disarmament.  On the basis of last year's negotiations, delegations now had a working paper of the Chair, which carefully identified and addressed the fundamental issues in the field of nuclear disarmament and could provide a good basis for the further work of the Group. 

Working Group II, she added, would continue its consideration of "practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms".  A Chairman's non-paper on the issue would guide upcoming discussions, and ultimately bring the Commission closer to consensus on practical measures to enhance confidence and reduce regional and international tension.

JAYANTHA DHANAPALA, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, congratulated Ms. Quarless on being the first woman to chair the Commission.  This was another break in the proverbial glass ceiling, he added.  He went on to recall that the Commission would celebrate its fiftieth anniversary next year.  No doubt, the global conditions for pursuing disarmament goals had changed dramatically since 1952, when the Commission had opened its first session in Paris, he said.  It was no small coincidence, then, that the Committee’s work during that time had fluctuated just as dramatically, from periods of productivity to periods of inactivity.  Still, many of the same sentiments addressed in those early years lingered today, particularly in light of recent trends in rising military expenditures, mounting civilian casualties due to armed conflicts and the continuing risks of catastrophic wars, including nuclear war.

Indeed, he continued, the similarities between the Commission’s early agenda and the issues it addressed today were an important reminder of the extraordinary challenges that remained ahead.  The challenge of nuclear disarmament would prove particularly demanding, since the “awesome” social, economic and environmental costs of producing nuclear weapons would pale in comparison to those that would arise if a nuclear war occurred.  Progress towards achieving every goal of the Charter tacitly assumed the non-occurrence of such a war.  The States parties to the NPT agreed last year that the challenge could not be met by a set of half measures.  They concluded that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of nuclear weapons.  Those parties took a positive step in that direction by making an “unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament”.

Since the NPT was not yet a universal treaty, he continued, it was vitally important for the global community to continue to take all efforts towards nuclear disarmament as soon as possible.  The Commission had a unique role to play in the slow, incremental process of building and maintaining global disarmament norms.  That role was highlighted by the fact that the Conference on Disarmament, the world’s only multilateral negotiating body for disarmament, had for many years been unable to reach a consensus on a work agenda.  As for the First Committee, that body considered over 50 resolutions every year, of which nuclear disarmament was only one.  The Commission, however, combined its universal membership with a mandate that allowed it to focus its deliberations on two crucial issues:  nuclear disarmament; and conventional arms control.

He said reaching global consensus on disarmament was never easy, but the Commission’s record over the last decade had been impressive.  In 1999 alone, it had reached consensus on two sets of guidelines concerning the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones and on conventional arms control, with particular emphasis on the consideration of peace following armed conflicts.  Although those and other guidelines set by the Commission were not legally binding, they played a key role in establishing ground rules for the conduct of national security policies in an increasingly interdependent global environment.  Those guidelines also offered individual citizens, including legislative workers, non-governmental groups and the media, a benchmark against which the actions of States could be addressed.

He said that, even though the last decade had not been a time of nuclear war, it had been a time of devastating bloodshed involving the use of an ever-expanding variety of conventional arms.  The era could also be characterized by the so-called “revolution in military affairs”.  By some estimates, more than

5 million people had been killed in armed conflicts during the post-cold war era.  At the same time, military budgets had grown to nearly $800 billion a year.  Armed exports to many highly unstable regions were also on the rise and the phenomenon of the illicit traffic in small arms had grown from a regional problem to a crisis of global dimensions.  He said that those changes -- the expenditure, loss of life and disrespect for the rule of law -- had eroded human security everywhere.  It was, therefore, highly appropriate that the Commission should again focus its attention on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms. 

An important measure in that regard concerned enhancing transparence in the production, stockpiling and transfer of arms.  He also noted that, unlike weapons of mass destruction, conventional arms might have legitimate purposes, particularly with respect to the inherent rights of individual or collective self-defence.  The legal, economic and political issues that had made conventional arms a very difficult challenge were not completely intractable.  Member States should continue to search for progress.  Indeed, reducing the production of small arms freed resources for use elsewhere in society.  Controls that reduced the intensity and duration of armed conflicts enhanced the prospects for social and economic development.  Even the environment stood to gain from progress in those areas.  The greater the gains, the greater the political support for the Commission's guidelines, as well as the greater likelihood that they would be enforced.

Progress in the field of conventional arms control was an entirely reasonable objective to pursue, he continued.  One only had to look at the enormous reductions in conventional arms that followed the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.  Governments worldwide were becoming more and more receptive to new controls in that field.  That had been particularly evident in regional initiatives that had emerged in Latin America and the West African region.  Perhaps growing interest in the upcoming United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects would serve as a further inducement for progress in the Commission’s deliberations in the conventional arms field.  The interest that non-governmental organizations had shown was further evidence of the support that existed in civil society for such progress. 

As the Commission began its work, he urged members to not merely recall the broad consensus manifested in the Millennium Declaration but to build upon those recommendations to spark a new beginning on disarmament issues for this new millennium.

HENRIK SALANDER (Sweden) spoke on behalf of the European Union, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Iceland.  He said that the Union continued to aim at consolidating the cessation of the arms race that ensued in the wake of the cold war, progressing concretely towards disarmament and reinforcing the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.  The Commission's work regarding the ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament should build on the agreement reached by all States parties at the NPT Review Conference.  It was important, therefore, that the report of the current year's deliberations adhered, as far as possible, to the agreed language in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. 

The Union, he continued, believed that the principles established at the Conference should be adhered to and that all the practical steps agreed upon by the States parties to the NPT should be fully implemented.  In that regard, he reiterated the Union's call for:  the early entry into force of the CTBT; the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Commission for a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally effective verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; the establishment in the Commission of an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament; and the early entry into force and full implementation of the Strategic Arms Limitation and Reduction Treaty II (START II) and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible.

Regarding the work in the Conference on Disarmament, he was still hopeful that the Conference would be able to overcome the obstacles to the effective launch of its work soon, and thus respond to the legitimate expectations of the international community.  The success of that endeavour required that the security concerns of all States be taken into account.  The immediate launch of the fissile material negotiations, as well as dealing with both nuclear disarmament and the prevention of an arms race in outer space within subsidiary bodies -- whose mandates needed to be both pragmatic and substantial to be accepted by all -- constituted a basis for substantive work in the Conference.

The Union, he said, hoped the Commission's current session would bring about fruitful discussions leading to concrete and comprehensive recommendations in the field of "practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms".  The recommendations should be designed to make progress in strengthening confidence and security and in achieving disarmament, so as to build an environment of cooperative security and give effect and expression to the duty of Member States to refrain from the use or threat of force in their international relations. 

Therefore, he said, the Union supported and encouraged efforts aimed at promoting confidence- and security-building measures.  The Commission could make a useful contribution in that field by preparing a catalogue of military confidence- and security-building measures.  Such measures were valuable tools in conflict prevention, as well as in post-conflict stabilization and rehabilitation.  The essential task of arms control in both situations was to create a positive process, where measures implemented could create confidence and security through transparency and predictability.  That also implied that they were an integrated part of a larger political process. 

He added that consideration could also be given to the establishment, on a voluntary basis, of regional, subregional or bilateral confidence- and security- building measures to meet specific needs.  They could complement, not duplicate or replace, existing measures or arms control agreements, and they should contribute to strengthening overall security and stability, in accordance with the principles of indivisible security and the right of every State to freely choose its security arrangements.

JORGE EDUARDO NAVARRETE (Mexico) said it was a positive step for the Commission to focus on two substantive issues during this session.  That would allow members to carefully consider broad disarmament concerns, as well as confidence-building measures in the area of conventional arms, with a view to reaching consensus.  There was now a general understanding that today’s climate allowed for the objective discussion of disarmament questions in multilateral forums, such as the NPT Review Conference last April, as well as the upcoming Conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  Further, the identification of specific disarmament issues for consideration was never easy and, therefore, required the participation of all Member States.

He went on to say that much remained to be done, including the establishment of a work agenda, as well as the establishment of ad hoc committees to consider specific disarmament issues.  He added that the Review Conference of the NPT provided a new opportunity to sign and ratify the convention on the part of States that had not already done so.  As President of that Conference, Mexico had done its utmost to see that the goal of universal ratification of the relevant conventions and protocols could be achieved.  Mexico would also work to identify the ways and means to achieve broad disarmament.  In that regard, he felt that priority should be given to defining recommendations on the topic of confidence-building measures.

SERGEI LING (Belarus) said that, as a State that had voluntarily rejected continued possession of nuclear weapons and completed their withdrawal in 1997, Belarus was convinced of the necessity to provide legally binding assurances to non-nuclear States, and supported efforts aimed at the elaboration of an international convention to that effect.  At the same time, he welcomed unilateral declarations made by nuclear-weapon States with respect to their policies of rejecting the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. 

Preservation of and strict compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) were the most important components of maintaining strategic stability, he said.  Deployment of a national ABM system in violation of the Treaty would undermine the existing nuclear non-proliferation regime and would negatively affect the entire system of global strategic stability that had taken dozens of years to establish.  Strategic stability was a priority issue for all States without exception.  The relevant deliberations should be carried out in a multilateral and non-bloc format, with the participation of all interested States and with full respect for the United Nations Charter.

He believed that nuclear disarmament should be complemented by practical steps aimed at strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime, including the consolidation of existing agreement and setting up of new nuclear-weapon-free zones.  The initiative of setting up such a zone in Central and Eastern Europe was extremely important for promoting regional and global security and stability. 

He was convinced that a gradual movement from simple to more complex bilateral and multilateral measures and agreements would set up a solid basis for preventing armed conflicts and strengthening national and regional security, he continued.  Elaboration of a wide-ranging set of confidence-building measures under the aegis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) could serve as an efficient model for successfully promoting interaction between States with differing approaches and views.  He emphasized the interrelationship between regional and global approaches to the development of confidence-building measures, as well as the importance of undertaking both legally and politically binding obligations in that sphere. 

ABDALLAH BAALI (Algeria) said the end of the cold war had calmed the atmosphere of distrust that had hampered international relations for nearly half a century.  He hoped that the current feeling of détente would help world governments to strengthen international relations by forever riding the planet of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.  He added that all deliberations of disarmament issues must be part of a process that promoted and reaffirmed broad respect for the principles laid down by the first disarmament Conference.

He went on to say that it was crucial to refrain from any initiatives that jeopardized the current atmosphere of détente.  To that end, the Commission could provide an important framework for objective deliberations, as well as a forum for discussing the future of the disarmament process, which included consideration of social and economic development issues.

He said that the means for achieving nuclear disarmament were pivotal for building international security.  During this session, his delegation would work to reach decisions that benefited all.  Further efforts should also be made to achieve the total elimination of the nuclear threat.  Indeed, total nuclear disarmament meant working resolutely, multilaterally, bilaterally and unilaterally, to free the planet from nuclear weapons.  Any recommendations arising from discussions of nuclear disarmament must, among other things, include critical consideration of the proliferation of weapons in outer space. Also, efforts should include consideration of the outcome on the NPT Review Conference held last April.

On specific confidence-building measures, he hoped that the Commission’s work took into account the legitimate concerns of all delegations.  Recommendations in that area must be global in nature, designed to strengthen international peace and security and cover illicit, as well as conventional arms.  Confidence-building measures should also be framed by both military and non-military factors, particularly economic and developmental concerns.  The confidence-building process must be gradual, but progressive, while ensuring peaceful coexistence, improved international relations and reaffirmation of the principles elaborated in the Charter.

MARIA LUIZ RODRIGUEZ (Argentina) said she was convinced that consensus would be reached at the end of the debate on the ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament and on practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms.  Despite progress in global nuclear disarmament, a serious risk of nuclear proliferation remained.  Yet, the determination of States parties to the NPT, in the final document adopted at the 2000 Review Conference, confirmed their commitment to article 6 of the Treaty and to take steps for its practical implementation.  The momentum achieved at that Conference must not be lost.  The importance of non-nuclear proliferation for the maintenance of international peace and security must not be forgotten. 

Comprehensive disarmament was a constant objective that Argentina wished to see achieved, she said.  Having had long experience in nuclear matters, and

as part of a nuclear-weapon-free area, Argentina was convinced of the benefits that such zones offered States.  Anything that could be done to ensure non-proliferation deserved support.  She reiterated her country's commitment to a more secure world, free of the risk of nuclear weapons.

Regarding confidence-building measures, Argentina, along with its regional neigbours, had worked hard to consolidate friendship and confidence.  That was part of a change in the concept of international security, which had emerged upon the re-discovery of democratic institutions.  Its neighbours were no longer seen as competitors, but as partners.  Regional security was based on relations of cooperation, mutual confidence and the defence of shared values.  Progress in those areas was a source of legitimate pride and a demonstration of the benefits that could flow from such cooperation. 

She cited the Inter-American Convention for Transparency in the Procurement of Conventional Weapons in the Americas and regular meetings of regional defence ministers, as some of examples of regional cooperation.  Also, Argentina had undertaken an innovative initiative with Chile, within the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), to prepare standardized methodology to measure defence expenditures.  She hoped that other countries in the region would use that initiative as a model.

GELSON FONSECA (Brazil)said that, as the Commission began its session, it should not lose sight of the fact that it was not a body that negotiated legally binding agreements.  Rather, it served an equally important function -- as the only universal forum dedicated to in-depth and long-term discussion of disarmament issues.  By taking advantage of that unique aspect of the nature of the Commission, he hoped members could deliberate the complex future of global disarmament without being bound by the constraints that characterized the negotiation of binding documents.  Indeed, the need for the Commission to strive for success was all the more urgent, since the prospect for success or agreement in other disarmament forums was far from assured.

Turning to confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms, he was encouraged by the working papers that had been presented thus far.  He added that Brazil’s national experience on bilateral, regional and multilateral aspects of that issue would prove instructive to the upcoming discussions.  He was of the view that the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms should be used as a confidence-building tool for Member States.  His delegation also wished to see broader participation in the Organization’s standardized system of reporting military expenditures.  He noted that the Americas had a large number of confidence-building measures that had been implemented with positive results.  Many confidence-building measures in Latin America had influenced or were being influenced by the development of subregional and bilateral measures with its neighbours.

Unfortunately, he said, there were still “distressing signs” in the field of nuclear disarmament.  Recent events could hardly be catalogued as being the ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament.  The lack of progress in the Conference on Disarmament was discouraging.  One year after the NPT Review Conference, and six months after the Millennium Summit, little political will had been shown to ensure that the commitments agreed upon at those occasions in the area of nuclear disarmament would be implemented.  He added that unilateral

measures that could lead to change in strategic stability might trigger an arms race, or the proliferation of nuclear defence shields.  With all that in mind, it would be more relevant for the working group on nuclear disarmament to consider the issue, with a view towards presenting a substantive document for adoption by the Commission next year.

* *** *