DISARMAMENT COMMISSION HOLDS ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION; WILL MEET AT HEADQUARTERS 5 - 23 APRIL 2004

Disarmament Commission

2003 Organizational Session

257^th Meeting (AM)

DISARMAMENT COMMISSION HOLDS ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION;

WILL MEET AT HEADQUARTERS 5 - 23 APRIL 2004

The Disarmament Commission, in its 2003 organizational session held this morning, adopted the agenda for its 2004 substantive session, to be held in New York from 5 to 23 April, and elected its Bureau.

The Commission, whose membership is universal, is a deliberative body mandated to make recommendations in the field of disarmament and to follow up the decisions and recommendations of the General Assembly’s first special session devoted to disarmament (1978).  The Commission focuses on a limited number of agenda items each session to allow for in-depth discussion.

Before the elections, N. Pant (Nepal), Vice-Chairman of the Commission’s 2003 substantive session, said that, given the fact that agenda items had not been agreed upon for next year’s substantive session, it seemed premature to elect the chairpersons of the two working groups.  Those elections would, therefore, not take place today.

Following that announcement, Revaz Adamia (Georgia) was elected as Chairman for the 2004 substantive session by acclamation.  Elected as Vice-Chairpersons by acclamation were:  Amela Sudzuka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) from the Eastern European Group; Ahipeaud Guebo Noel Emmanuel (Côte d’Ivoire) and Saad Maandi (Algeria) from the African Group; Alisher Vohidov (Uzbekistan) and Kwang-chul Lew (Republic of Korea) from the Asian Group; and Hugo Flores (Peru) and Frederic Bijou (Costa Rica) from the Latin American and Caribbean Group.  It was decided that the remaining Vice-Chairpersons and Rapporteur, from the Group of Western European and Other States, would be elected at a later stage, since that group was still in consultations.

In a statement to the Commission, Mr. Adamia said entrusting him with the chairmanship was an acknowledgement of his country’s contribution to the important cause of security and disarmament in the Caucasus.  Of course, it was disappointing to all that, at the end of the day, it had not been possible to overcome the few remaining obstacles towards the successful conclusion of the Commission’s work.  It was not easy to achieve a perfect balance of interests on issues that went to the core of security concepts.  Despite the Commission’s inability to reach a consensus, however, both working groups had come very close to agreement.

He now invited the Commission to look at the future.  The 2004 disarmament calendar was “rich” with events, from which the community of nations expected a lot.  Despite the fact that the last three to four years had not been the easiest or most productive for the international multilateral disarmament machinery, the present international climate not only called for urgent measures, but also allowed for a wide variety of undertakings in disarmament.  The international disarmament community had had its share of disappointments recently, but it had also had positive achievements, of which it should be proud.

The inability of both the Commission and the Conference on Disarmament to yield tangible results had contributed to a heightened sense of urgency to reform and revitalize the disarmament machinery, so that it might adequately react and respond to emerging threats to global peace and security.  Those threats had created a “new atmosphere of great expectations” among politicians, disarmament professionals, non-governmental organizations, the academic community and civil society.  He hoped that the overall atmosphere would positively influence the work of the Commission in 2004.

The Commission concluded its 2003 session without concrete proposals to advance either nuclear disarmament or confidence-building in the field of conventional arms, departing from its usual practice of completing consideration of two items in three years, with the consensus adoption of guidelines and recommendations.

Referring to the draft resolution approved by the First Committee on the report of the Disarmament Commission (document A/C.1/58/L.20), he said the items to be considered by the Disarmament Commission had been left blank.  He shared the concern expressed that neither a nuclear nor a conventional item had been agreed upon for discussion, as had been mandated.

Acknowledging that reaching consensus would not be easy or quick, he said that to facilitate building consensus, he would consult regional groups and individual delegations and hold open-ended meetings, beginning in January.  He would also compile lists of possible nuclear and conventional topics of discussion, so that the items could be agreed upon well before the beginning of the Commission’s deliberations.  Noting that in 2000 it had taken 42 informal meetings to agree on two items, he hoped that this year the Commission would be more efficient.

He then turned to the draft provisional agenda for the 2004 substantive session for the Commission.  It was adopted without a vote.  Similarly, the Commission also decided to re-establish Working Groups I and II to deal with the two substantive agenda items.  Finally, because the remaining chairpersons had not yet been nominated, the Commission decided to suspend the present organizational session, so that the delegations could carry out further consultations, and resume it at a later date.

The Disarmament Commission will meet again at a time to be announced in the Journal.

* *** *