PRESS CONFERENCE BY CHAIR OF SMALL ARMS CONFERENCE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE

The Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects had successfully met the daunting challenge before it, the Committee Chairman told correspondents this morning at a Headquarters press conference.

The Conference, which will be held at Headquarters from 9 to 20 July, will be the first major international meeting on the issue of small arms and illicit weapons.

Presenting his view on the outcome of the Preparatory Committee meeting, which was held in New York from 19 to 30 March, Carlos dos Santos, the Permanent Representative of Mozambique, said that the Preparatory Committee had not only successfully complied with its mandate, but it had also created an environment of cooperation among delegations on the final outcome document.

Discussion in the Preparatory Committee had not gotten "bogged down in dichotomies", Mr. dos Santos added.  Both the suppliers and recipients of small arms had discussed the merits and demerits of proposals.

The Preparatory Committee, which concluded its third and final session, was established at the General Assembly’s fifty-fourth session to recommend draft final documents for the Conference and decide certain procedural issues.  Earlier preparatory sessions were held in early February 2000 and January 2001.  When the Committee convened for the third session, it began work on a revised draft programme of action for the Conference, proposed by the Chairman.  Extensive debate was held on the draft and wide support expressed for it, although a final document was not approved.

Mr. dos Santos told correspondents that among the matters addressed at the session, the Preparatory Committee had decided on the presidency for the July Conference.  There had been three candidates for the position:  the Ambassadors of Colombia, Japan and the United Kingdom.  The Committee had decided that Ambassador Camillo Reyes of Colombia would serve as President of the Conference.  The other two candidates -- Ambassador Mitsuro Donowaki of Japan and Ambassador Michael Weston of the United Kingdom -- had shown magnanimity in endorsing Ambassador Reyes, and had accepted other roles within the Conference framework.

Most of the second and third sessions of the Preparatory Committee had been devoted to the Chairman's proposals for a draft programme of action, he said.  Delegates had accepted his first proposal, which contained elements of the draft, as well as its structure.  On the basis of discussions at the second session, he had drafted another text, which was presented to the Committee at its third session.  Committee members had overwhelmingly supported the text, which they felt reflected their messages and views.  The Committee had accepted the text as a good basis for negotiation for a final outcome document.

Delegates had tried to seek common ground without lowering the text to the least common denominator, he added.  Everyone had felt involved in the process and

had contributed to its outcome.  "That is what the United Nations is all about", he said.

Many of the measures proposed in the draft programme of action had to do with what countries could and should do at a national level to prevent diversion from the legal to the illegal trade, Mr. dos Santos said.  Such measures included:  improving legislation and capacity-building for better control and destruction of surpluses; better management of stockpiles; marking and tracing of weapons; control of brokering-related activities; better control of exports; better disarmament; demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants in post-conflict situations; and enforcement of United Nations embargoes.  

The draft programme of action included measures to be taken at regional and global levels, he continued.  Most delegates had supported the measures proposed in the draft.  The Preparatory Committee had built on what countries and regions had done so far in the area of the illicit trade in small arms.  "We are not starting afresh”, he said.  “I think that's what generates greater momentum in this process."

Considering the delicate nature of the small arms issue, governments had acted with a great sense of responsibility, he said.  While the Preparatory Committee's recommendations would require further consideration by the Conference, the Preparatory Committee had prepared the ground for the Conference.  If the Conference maintained the same spirit of cooperation and compromise enjoyed by the Preparatory Committee, it would succeed.

The Conference would be held at the ministerial level, Mr. dos Santos said.  Ministers were expected to reiterate their government's commitments to dealing with the small arms issue.  Consensus was important.  It took only one actor or country to derail the efforts of many.

The Committee had decided that non-governmental organizations would be allowed to participate in the process, he added.  Non-governmental organizations had done an excellent job in working with governments and supporting the process.  Their well organized participation in the process had earned them greater respect and had demonstrated a great sense responsibility on their part.  Non-governmental organizations continued to push governments to raise the bar on what they could realistically do.  The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) should be given credit for its role in the process.

A number of important initiatives had also aided the preparatory process, Mr. dos Santos said.  They included a proposal by the United Kingdom for an Arms Surrender Fund, as well as a proposal by Brazil, Netherlands and Mali for a Small Arms Destruction Day.  Such proposals would help to create momentum around the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.

Asked to comment on the status of the draft text, Mr. dos Santos said that the Committee had considered the Chairman's proposal, which was seen as a good basis for discussion.  Many proposals had been made for amendments and additions to the text.  The idea was to take the same text to the Conference, taking into account discussion during the third session of the Committee.  He had proposed issuing an information sheet, which would provide an assessment of where the Committee stood in terms of the outcome document at the end of the third session.  The information sheet was meant to be an aid to delegates in their discussions and would be available in a few weeks.

Was it fair to say that the Committee had come up with a compilation of ideas that was nowhere near a final outcome document? a correspondent asked.  There had been many proposals before the Committee, and many delegations had identified similarities between the proposals and their suggested amendments, he answered.  The Committee did not have the time, however, to undertake a review of suggested paragraphs and the proposals.  Discussions during the session would facilitate the adoption of the final outcome document during the Conference.

Asked to identify outstanding issues, Mr. dos Santos said that a number of issues required more discussion before common ground could be reached.  They included the list of export criteria, proposals for legally binding instruments on issues such as brokering activities, the civilian possession of small arms, non-State actors and indicators of surpluses.  Although those issues required more discussion, they were reflected in the Chairman's proposals.

Was there a working definition of small arms and light weapons? a correspondent asked.  Although the Committee had avoided lengthy debate on a specific definition, it had worked on the basis of a 1997 report by a governmental expert panel.  That panel had indicated a list of small arms for discussion at the level of the United Nations.

On the issue of civilian possession of small arms, had any non-governmental organization taken a position in opposition to the position of the National Rifle Association? a correspondent asked.  While some governments and non-governmental organizations within the Preparatory Committee framework had indicated that measures should be taken to control civilian possession, others had disagreed, he said.  It was an area that needed further work. 

Given the difficulty of those issues, how would the Conference be able to reach consensus? a correspondent asked.  Mr. dos Santos said that his optimism was based on the fact that some delegations had offered to draft language that would facilitate agreement.  When such a cooperative environment existed, consensus language should be possible.  He had not seen any attempts to reduce compromise to the lowest common denominator.  There had been attempts to keep the essence of the issues at hand.  There was great potential for success, he said.

Asked if there was consensus on the arming of non-State actors, Mr. dos Santos said that there was no consensus on the issue yet.  While some proposals and counter-proposals were on the table, they needed further discussion.

If the final text was not legally binding, what impact would it have? a correspondent asked.  Mr. dos Santos said that the commitment of States to do something about the issue of the illicit trade in small arms must be taken seriously.  If governments failed to act, they could be tasked in terms of what they had agreed to do in the final text.

On the participation of non-governmental organizations in the Conference, Mr. dos Santos said that one session had been allocated for the direct participation of non-governmental organizations.  That session would be held when no other sessions were taking place, to ensure the presence of delegations.  For

the rest of the sessions, non-governmental organizations would observe the proceedings.

Had there been a decision that the final text would be a politically binding document, rather than a legally binding document? a correspondent asked.  Mr. dos Santos said that the Preparatory Committee had not taken a formal, written decision.  At the United Nations, it was understood that any document that was not a treaty was politically binding.  The Committee had been discussing a programme of action, not a treaty.

Would anything in the politically binding document be at odds with the legally binding instrument out of Vienna? a correspondent asked.  Mr. dos Santos said that he was not concerned about that.  The same governments that negotiated in Vienna also negotiated in New York.  The idea was to seek complimentarity, and not to create problems.  Also, the Conference in July would have greater scope than the negotiations in Vienna.  He believed that countries and governments could do more at the Conference level, than at the protocol discussions.

Regarding proposals for a review mechanism, Mr. dos Santos said that there was a section in the draft text that contained proposals for possible follow-up mechanisms, including a five-year review.  The Committee envisaged a meeting every two years to assess progress at the regional level.

* *** *