‘CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE’ IN COLLECTIVE SECURITY, DIVERSION OF SCARCE RESOURCES TO ARMS AMONG ISSUES RAISED, AS FIRST COMMITTEE BEGINS DEBATE

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

2^nd Meeting (AM)

‘CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE’ IN COLLECTIVE SECURITY, DIVERSION OF SCARCE RESOURCES

TO ARMS AMONG ISSUES RAISED, AS FIRST COMMITTEE BEGINS DEBATE

As the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) began its general debate this morning, Chairman Jarmo Sareva (Finland) told delegations the Committee was meeting during troubled times, with too many countries diverting scarce resources to military use, others attempting to acquire mass destruction weapons and those developments exacerbated by a “crisis of confidence” in multilateralism.

Some States were turning to unilateralism as the only method of self-defence and collective security was thus becoming elusive, he continued.  He urged the international community to allow for the growth and development of existing multilateral tools, since that was the best way to confront global threats.  Progress in the field of disarmament was more important than ever, given the fact that some States were guilty of trying to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction, or helping others to achieve that goal.

Addressing the Committee for the first time in his capacity as Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Nobuyasu Abe warned delegates that recent events had demonstrated that non-State actors could produce and use weapons of mass destruction.  However, although the world was facing the horrific danger of terrorists acquiring such weaponry, major conventional weapons systems, small arms and landmines also continued to account for untold casualties each year.

The adequacy and effectives of the tools available to the international community must be examined, he said.  The special concerns that made some States feel uniquely vulnerable must be faced, and the international community must demonstrate that collective action can address those concerns.  Disarmament treaties depended upon three conditions:  they must be viewed as legitimate; they must demonstrate compliance can be ensured through monitoring; and they must have credible means of enforcement.  If any one of those conditions were not satisfied, the world would continue to face difficulties promoting multilateral cooperation and limiting the resort to unilateralism.

Speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, the representative of Brazil urged States to refrain from any action that could lead to a new arms race.  He also expressed the belief that, as long as nuclear weapons continued to play a role in security policies, the risk of proliferation would never disappear.  In that context, he said that the only way to guarantee that weapons of mass destruction would not be used against humankind was to destroy them and assure that they would never be produced again.

The representative of Indonesia said that, while there had been some progress, the disarmament scene was in disarray.  Criticizing unilateral coercive measures in pursuit of national security interests, he expressed serious concern about new, untenable doctrines of pre-emption against non-nuclear States.

Statements in the general debate were also made by representatives of Mexico, Italy (on behalf of the European Union), South Africa, Argentina, Jordan, Switzerland, Peru (on behalf of the Rio Group), Nigeria, and Venezuela.  The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 7 October, to continue its general debate.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to begin its general debate.  For background, see Press Release GA/DIS/3247 issued 3 October.

Statements

JARMO SAREVA (Finland), Committee Chairman, said the First Committee was meeting in troubled times, with too many countries diverting scarce resources to overcome internal conflicts.  Other States were guilty of trying to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction, or helping others to achieve that goal.  Such problems were being exacerbated by the faltering of multilateralism, he said.  Specifically, as some actors were turning to unilateralism as the only method of self-defence, collective security was becoming elusive.

Lamenting that, in many parts of the world, modern weapon systems were being used as solutions to political problems, he stressed that, just as no single crisis could account for the world’s current predicament, no one solution could be applied to fix everything.  Rather, many tools were needed.  In that context, he reiterated that, while States should not turn a blind eye to the flaws of multilateralism, they should also refrain from abandoning it simply because a small group of States was doing so.

Referring to the Secretary-General’s recent remarks to the General Assembly, in which he said it was not enough to denounce unilateralism unless we first addressed the concerns of States who were acting unilaterally, Mr. Sareva stressed that the best way to confront global threats was to allow for the growth and development of existing multilateral tools.  In that regard, it was necessary to address non-compliance with treaty regimes and develop transparency and accountability measures to build confidence.  It was also important to recognize the role of civil society, promote universal membership in treaty regimes, and explore new initiatives to combat the spread of small arms, he said.

Turning to the work of the Committee, he stated that the many items on the agenda should not be seen as isolated issues, but rather as security concerns that were closely connected.  Considering those bonds, and recalling the Secretary-General’s calls for reform, he suggested that the Committee examine its procedures to ensure that it was working as efficiently as it could.  In that regard, he emphasized that the General Assembly’s work had to be made more relevant.  He also told delegates that, if nobody outside the room paid attention to their statements, their work was in danger of becoming irrelevant.

Addressing the Committee for the first time in his capacity as Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, NOBUYASU ABE, expressed hope that the Committee would have a productive session.  Two years before, just months after the tragic events of 11 September, the Secretary-General had remarked that the world had entered the third millennium “through the gate of fire”.  The world now confronted new dangers, which were a common concern for all the Member States represented in the Committee.  Weapons of mass destruction posed the greatest threat, and it should not be surprising that issues related to nuclear weapons would once again figure prominently on the agenda of the First Committee. 

“We may not be able to fully resolve all the disarmament, non-proliferation, arms control and counter-terrorism issues that will arise about these weapons”, he added, but he hoped the Committee would be able to make progress in promoting common understanding and in agreeing on concrete and practical measures that would strengthen the global norms on those weapons.

Recent events had demonstrated that non-State actors could produce and use weapons of mass destruction, he continued, reawaking the world to the horrific danger of terrorists acquiring any type of such weaponry.  That had motivated governments around the world to pay closer attention to the measures needed to eliminate such risks, though much work remained to be done to address the numerous dangers.  Also, while the weapons of mass destruction posed a great danger, major conventional weapons systems, small arms and landmines continued to account for untold casualties each year.  Efforts were under way to curb those dangers, and the United Nations continued to be the focus of efforts to increase transparency and build confidence, as seen, for example, in the Register of Conventional Arms, and the Standardized Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures.

In considering the common challenges, the Committee should recall the advice of the Secretary-General, who had urged the Assembly at the opening of its session this year not to shy away from questions about the adequacy and effectiveness of the instruments at the disposal of the international community.  Given the imminent spread of deadly weapons, it would not suffice merely to recite the norms of prohibition.  It was necessary to urgently explore practical means of strengthening world security.  It was in that spirit that the Secretary-General had also urged Member States to “face up squarely to the concern that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action”.  It was necessary to show that those concerns could and would be addressed effectively through collective action.

Various instruments and institutions in the area of disarmament depended on three essential conditions, he said.  First of all, they needed to be viewed as legitimate.  Second, it was also necessary to ensure compliance with the most vital norms and ways of monitoring them.  And third, it was important to have credible means of enforcing those norms if they were violated.  If any one of those conditions was not adequately satisfied, the world would continue to face difficulties in promoting multilateral cooperation and limiting the resort to unilateralism.

In closing, he said that whether the issues concerned disarmament, non-proliferation, arms control, or counter-terrorism, each of those areas had benefited from constructive contributions from individuals and non-governmental organizations, and he expected those contributions to continue.  “Let us keep both our doors and our minds open to receive such support in all our future work”, he said.

GUSTAVO ALBIN (Mexico) said that since the last time the Committee had met the multilateral system had had to confront grand challenges.  Nevertheless, despite the fact that the validity of the collective international security system was being questioned, multilateralism was still the cornerstone of international peace and security.  Lamenting the emergence of new strategic approaches to security that involved the use of nuclear weapons, he stressed that nuclear-weapon States had to work harder to eliminate their arsenals.  After all, the mere existence of nuclear weapons was a threat to humankind.

Recognizing that the peaceful use of atomic energy was acceptable, he expressed concern that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had withdrawn from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  Elaborating on the situation, he said diplomacy should be used to reach a peaceful solution on the Korean peninsula.  Turning to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), he said all countries should ensure that the Agency was able to inspect their nuclear facilities.  Regarding the Conference on Disarmament, he expressed regret that, once again, a year of stagnation had passed.  In that context, he urged States to allow the Conference to resume its work.

He declared that the relationship between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction made the indefinite possession of such weapons a serious threat to international peace and security.  Thus, he said, their elimination was the only efficient solution.  With respect to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), he called upon all States that had not yet done so to ratify it, so that it could enter into force.  Regarding the Biological Weapons Convention, he recognized the importance of advances in national legislations and developments in international cooperation.  Nevertheless, he insisted that the Convention needed verification mechanisms to ensure compliance.

In reference to nuclear-weapon-free zones, he said he would promote a resolution that would seek to consolidate coordination and cooperation among States that belonged to such zones.  In that regard, he expressed support for Mongolia’s consolidation as a nuclear-weapon-free State, and encouraged the five Central Asian States to finalize the establishment of their nuclear-weapon-free zone.  After briefly turning to the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention), in order to laud its success, he concluded by stating that his delegation’s vision of multilateralism rested on three pillars -- namely, dialogue, negotiation and law.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said that on 20 June in Thessaloniki, the Union’s heads of State and government had adopted a declaration, which stressed that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery was a growing threat to international peace and security.  The Union was committed to elaborating a coherent strategy to address the threat of proliferation, based on its commitment to uphold the existing instruments and support the multilateral institutions charged with upholding compliance with those treaties.  Among the measures emphasized by the Union last June, he listed the need to:  further promote the universality of key disarmament and non-proliferation arrangements; promote national implementation; enhance support for agencies in charge of verification; and foster the role of the Security Council.  It was also important to reinforce the Union’s cooperative threat-reduction programmes with third countries, targeted at support for disarmament, control and security of sensitive materials, facilities and expertise.

Continuing, he stressed the importance of preserving and strengthening the NPT as the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime.  The Union supported the objectives of the Treaty and effective implementation of the outcome of the 2000 Review Conference.  It was important to achieve universal adherence to the NPT, and he called on India and Pakistan to comply with Security Council resolution 1172 and accede as non-nuclear-weapon States to the NPT.  He also called on Israel to accede to the Treaty as a non-nuclear State.  The Union deplored the announced intention of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to withdraw from the NPT and urged that country to reconsider its actions.  The IAEA comprehensive safeguards, including the Additional Protocol, constituted the verification standard, and the Union accorded a high priority to its implementation.  In that connection, he called on Iran to immediately cooperate with the IAEA to enable the Board to draw definitive conclusions at its next meeting in November.

Turning to the CTBT, he said that the third conference to facilitate the entry into force of that instrument had taken place in Vienna in September.  To ensure that the resolve of the international community did not weaken, the Union continued to call on all those States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the CTBT without delay and conditions.  Among other key instruments, he mentioned the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention, and added that the Union attached special importance to the negotiation of a non-discriminatory and universal treaty banning production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear-explosive devices.  He also expressed regret over ongoing stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament and urged it to start substantive work in 2004.

In its Thessaloniki Declaration, the Union recognized that appropriate steps towards general and complete disarmament could contribute to furthering non-proliferation objectives, and it was determined to play its part in addressing the problems of regional instability and the situations of conflict, which lay behind many weapons programmes.  The Union renewed its appeal to the countries of South Asia to make every effort to stop the arms race in the region.  It also remained committed to the full implementation of Council resolutions on the Middle East and supported the efforts to establish an effectively verifiable zone free of weapons of mass destruction there.  It was necessary to actively pursue accession of all States in the region not only to the NPT, but also to the conventions banning chemical and biological weapons.

The results of the July meeting on the implementation of the Programme of Action on Small Arms had been positive and useful, he continued.  The Union and its member States could legitimately claim to be at the forefront in the fight against the illicit trafficking on small arms and light weapons.  It was important to maintain and enhance the momentum of the Programme of Action, and he welcomed the recommendations of the Group of Experts on the feasibility of a multilateral instrument, which would enable States to identify and trace illicit small arms and light weapons.  He also supported the adoption of a mandate to establish an open-ended working group on a legally binding instrument and closer cooperation to prevent illicit brokering in those weapons.  It was important to work out a United Nations definition of small arms and light weapons and examine the requirements for an effective national and, if feasible, regional and global end-user certificate systems, as well as information exchange and verification mechanisms.

He went on to emphasize the Union’s commitment to the efforts to achieve global eradication of anti-personnel mines and urged States not party to accede to the Ottawa Convention.  The European Union had pledged €240 million in support of mine action in 2002-2009, and that effort was complemented by substantial national funding by the Union’s members.  The Union attached great importance to the convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons and hoped that ongoing negotiations in Geneva on the explosive remnants of war would lead, as soon as possible, to the adoption of a multilateral legally binding instrument.  The Union also intended to focus on strengthening control policies and practices for export of sensitive materials, equipment and technologies.

SERGIO QUEIROZ DUARTE (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, referred to the 13 steps, which had been adopted by the States parties to the NPT at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, and by which the nuclear-weapon States made a clear commitment to work towards the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.  Unfortunately, he said, the lack of progress in implementing the 13 steps was cause for deep concern.  Additionally, he expressed regret that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had announced its withdrawal from the NPT.  He also called upon India, Israel, and Pakistan to join the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States.

He then called attention to two draft resolutions that would be submitted by the Coalition.  The first, entitled “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world:  a new agenda”, built upon the Coalition’s previous work at the 2000 NPT Review Conference and at the meetings of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference.  The second draft, called “Reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons”, highlighted the particular threat posed by tactical nuclear weapons and stressed that the reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be accorded higher priority, in the march towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Stressing his belief that nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament were mutually reinforcing processes, he urged States to refrain from any action that could lead to a new arms race.  He also expressed the belief that, as long as nuclear weapons continued to play a role in security policies, the risk of proliferation would never disappear.  In that context, he said that the only way to guarantee that weapons of mass destruction would not be used against humankind was to destroy them and assure that they would never be produced again.

DUMISANI KUMALO (South Africa) said that since last year, disarmament and proliferation had become an area of much greater international attention.  The threat, as perceived and presented, of weapons of mass destruction had resulted in war.  Scenarios and possible consequences of the use of weapons of mass destruction were, indeed, frightening, and the Committee carried the responsibility of collectively allaying the fears of ordinary people around the world and adequately addressing the issues in front of it.  The challenge for the Committee was to adopt action-oriented resolutions supported by all, which should provide the platform for future work and be implemented following their adoption.

The Committee should seek action on a few of the most vexing issues, he said.  Global military expenditure was expected to rise to $1 trillion this year, while half of the world languished in chronic poverty and deprivation.  There had been no progress on real nuclear disarmament.  Nuclear-weapon States were clinging to their arsenals and more countries were working to emulate them.  The Conference on Disarmament had not done any substantive work in seven years.  Also, such issues as possible weaponization of space and strengthening of the Biological Weapons Convention had not been adequately addressed. 

Along with its partners in the New Agenda, South Africa would be tabling resolutions on a new agenda towards a nuclear-weapon-free world, and reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, he said.  The intention was to enhance the view that further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be accorded a higher priority and be carried out in a comprehensive manner.  The drafts would also build on the previous resolutions and take into account the developments of the last year.

He welcomed the outcome of the First Review Conference of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and he looked forward to the meeting later this month and the development of a plan of action on national implementation measures.  His country would work diligently with all delegations to ensure that the Plan of Action identified the problems and constraints experienced by some countries and offered focused technical support and assistance to them.

Turning to small arms and light weapons, he welcomed successful conclusion of a recent biennial meeting of States to consider the implementation of the Programme of Action.  Also, the Assembly should act upon the recommendations of the Group of Experts to launch negotiations on an international instrument that would enable States to identify and trace such weapons.  However, the International Action Network on Small Arms had recently commented that the progress made towards the Programme of Action could, at best, be described as modestly positive.  South Africa, Colombia and Japan intended to submit a draft resolution on the matter.  Through the decisions proposed in the resolution, the international community would, under the auspices of the United Nations, intensify its collective efforts to prevent, combat and eradicate the scourge of such weapons.

Further reviewing international disarmament efforts, he noted major peace initiatives launched in Africa, emphasizing the debilitating impact of anti-personnel mines.  The 2004 Review Conference on that matter would provide the international community with an ideal opportunity to critically evaluate the achievements and intensify its efforts to mobilize resources to clear mined areas and assist the victims.  His delegation also noted the consensus report of the Group of Governmental Experts on the continuing operation and further development of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.

LUIS CAPPAGLI (Argentina) lamented that the Conference on Disarmament, the Disarmament Commission, and the First Committee all seemed to be in a state of paralysis.  In that regard, he noted that only frank dialogue would generate the necessary political will to move forward.  Turning to the threat of international terrorism, he said the notion that terrorists could gain access to weapons of mass destruction should not be ignored or underestimated.  In that context, he urged Member States to overcome any impasses, work together to strengthen inspection regimes, and pursue verifiable disarmament strategies.

Stressing that multilateralism was needed to confront the new global reality, he urged all actors to strictly observe and strengthen legally binding instruments.  After all, enforcement and transparency were essential when approaching disarmament from a democratic standpoint.  In conclusion, he emphasized that it was now time for delegations to abandon mere rhetoric and develop common understandings of security in order to ultimately achieve global peace.

RAMEZ GOUSSOUS (Jordan) stressed the importance of the issue of small arms and light weapons and welcomed the adoption by consensus of the report of the first biennial meeting of States to consider the implementation of the Programme of Action to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in those weapons last July.  Jordan supported continuation of all international and regional efforts to promote multilateralism in disarmament and non-proliferation, and urged adoption of measures to remove from circulation and dispose of prohibited weapons, concentrating on economic development and promotion of peace under the auspices of the United Nations.

He said it was important to encourage the elimination of the nuclear threat from the Middle East and the commitment to the NPT, and, through that, making the region free of weapons of mass destruction.  It was noteworthy, in that respect, that the Assembly had over the last two decades called upon all countries in the Middle East, particularly the only State in the region with nuclear-weapon capabilities, to adhere without delay to the NPT and to place all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.  All the States in the Middle East, except Israel, were now parties to the NPT.  For its part, Jordan had ratified all the international instruments related to weapons of mass destruction and was making diligent efforts to make the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

Among possible measures to improve the situation in the Middle East, he mentioned the need to propose practical measures to reduce tension, build confidence and control the arms race in the region under the auspices of the United Nations.  It was also necessary to strengthen intelligence cooperation between the States of the Middle East and the arms-exporting States of the world and to refrain from any violations of treaties or of State sovereignty.  Furthermore, it was necessary to continue efforts to create an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. 

As far as the CTBT was concerned, his country was encouraged by the fact that 168 States had signed the Treaty, 93 had ratified it, and 31 had deposited instruments of ratification.  The fissile material cut-off treaty should be the next logical step in nuclear disarmament.  That was why the Conference on Disarmament had to agree on a programme of work and start constructive negotiations on such a treaty, among other things.  Regarding the Ottawa Convention, he said that Jordan had ratified that instrument, and this year had destroyed its entire stockpile.  His country also supported the Conventional Arms Register.  However, the Register could not be effective, unless its scope was enlarged in the future to include military holdings and procurement through national production, as well as weapons of mass destruction, in particular, nuclear weapons.

CHRISTIAN FAESSLER (Switzerland) said that the changing security environment, in particular, this year’s events in Iraq, had not only underlined the importance of multilateral institutions and instruments for maintaining international peace and security, but also exposed their limitations.  Recent months had demonstrated that the failure to respect commitments and obligations in the area of weapons of mass destruction threatened to jeopardize international peace and security.  Among the main concerns, he listed the withdrawal of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from the NPT, and he urged that country to immediately resume its cooperation with the IAEA and provide total transparency in compliance with the NPT. 

Another source of concern was Iran’s nuclear policy, he continued.  In order to re-establish confidence and reassure the international community, Iran should unconditionally and without delay sign and implement an additional protocol to its safeguards agreement with the IAEA.  It should also demonstrate its good will by cooperating more promptly and ensuring complete transparency.  At the same time, commitments by nuclear-weapon States were also indispensable, and it was disappointing that the only positive recent development in that area had been the ratification of the Moscow Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on the reduction of strategic nuclear warheads.  While that was a welcome step, nuclear-weapon States needed to deal with all the components of their nuclear arsenals.  His country favoured a multilateral and universal agreement to totally ban those weapons.

As for the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, he said that an important element of its action programme was the need for negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a treaty banning production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear-explosive devices.  Unfortunately, the prospects for such negotiations were not encouraging.  Biological weapons also posed a real threat, and even though the efforts to negotiate an instrument to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention had not yet borne fruit, Switzerland was confident that the follow-up process that had emerged from the last Review Conference would improve compliance with that instrument.

He also welcomed the proposal of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to launch an international appeal at the ministerial level against the abuse of bio-technology.  Since 2002, his country had funded a World Health Organization (WHO) project in the area of communicable diseases that were not of natural origin.  That project, which also aimed to combat bio-terrorism, had been successful.  His country was satisfied with the progress made since the Chemical Weapons Convention had come into force, but the time had now come to tackle the final obstacles, including the inadequate degree of national implementation and exchange of information about on-site inspections.  For its part, his country intended to contribute substantial sums to finance chemical weapons destruction programmes in the Russian Federation.

Addressing the devastating effect of small arms and light weapons, he also said that members of the international community must commit themselves wholeheartedly to establishing effective instruments to regulate the uncontrolled traffic in those weapons and contribute to the implementation of the 2001 United Nations Programme of Action, whose biennial meeting in New York in July had been a success.  He hoped that in the course of the current session, the Assembly would launch the negotiations for an international instrument for tracing small arms and light weapons in accordance with the conclusions of the group of experts.  If such a process could be initiated, Switzerland would be willing to chair the working group on the issue.

OSWALDO DE RIVERO (Peru), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said the march towards global disarmament was encountering many difficulties.  For example, the CTBT had still not entered into force, and the Conference on Disarmament had been unable to agree upon a programme of work.  Nevertheless, his region was striving to overcome those disappointments.  Through the 1967 Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), for instance, it had served as a model for nuclear-weapon-free zones throughout the world.

Expressing concern about the development of new nuclear weapons and new security doctrines that would warrant their use, he stressed that the total elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the best way to achieve peace and international security.  In that context, he called for the strengthening of the verification capabilities of the Biological Weapons Convention.  Regarding the threat of terrorism, he stated that measures to reinforce the technological and physical security of nuclear material and radioactive sources were becoming more important.

Regarding the Ottawa Convention, he reiterated his region’s commitment to become a landmine-free zone, and he called upon the international community to provide affected countries with the technology and resources to remove the mines and assist their victims.  He also strongly condemned the use and manufacturing of such weapons by non-State actors.

Turning to small arms and light weapons, he highlighted their links to terrorism and drug trafficking.  In that regard, he told delegates that the States in the Rio Group were actively participating in regional and international efforts to eradicate such weapons.  He also drew attention to the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, which had stimulated security debates and contributed to the coordination of regional disarmament efforts.

W.O. AKINSANYA (Nigeria) said the international community was currently facing increasingly divergent views on arms control and disarmament.  Such divergence was stalling progress and eroding the optimism that had characterized the last decade, when significant agreements had been reached regarding the Chemical Weapons Convention, the CTBT, and the Ottawa Convention.  He regretted that the list of recent failures in the field of international disarmament was long, stretching from the CTBT not entering into force to the disappointing performances of the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission.

Stressing that nuclear weapons posed the greatest threat to humankind, he called on nuclear-weapon States to halt the qualitative improvement, development, production, and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.  He also emphasized the importance of ensuring that any nuclear disarmament process should be irreversible, transparent, and verifiable.  Turning to nuclear-weapon-free zones, he highlighted the important role they played in the maintenance of regional peace and security.  In that context, he expressed regret that the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) had still not entered into force, and he called upon all State signatories to ratify it as soon as possible.

He addressed the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, highlighting its negative effects on peace, stability, security, and economic development in Africa.  In light of such weapons’ ability to fuel and prolong conflicts and the millions of lives they had taken, he stressed the importance of negotiations on a legally binding international instrument to regulate the supply to non-State actors.  Regarding the Ottawa Convention, he said that, despite its success, landmines continued to claim victims, create suffering, and hamper economic development in Africa.  In that regard, he called for generous international assistance to affected States.  After all, in addition to mine-clearing activities, there were many victims who needed rehabilitation.

Calling attention to his country’s first satellite, which had been successfully launched 10 days ago, he stated that the event reflected Nigeria’s commitment to the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.  He also insisted that an arms race in outer space must be prevented at all costs, since future generations deserved to benefit from the vast, limitless resources that existed beyond our planet.

NUGROHO WISNUMURTI (Indonesia) said that, while there had been some progress, it was somewhat of an unfortunate reality that the disarmament scene was in disarray.  He was deeply concerned over the declining role and diminishing contributions of multilateralism to disarmament and international security.  Efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament continued to be undermined by the persistence of narrowly conceived strategic doctrines and unilateral coercive measures in pursuit of national security interests.  Another source of serious concern was a new, untenable doctrine of pre-emption even against non-nuclear States and by expanded scope for the use of nuclear weapons.

Other worrisome trends included the efforts to modernize existing arsenals and create new types of nuclear weapons, he continued.  Perhaps, one of the most frightening of all was the possibility that weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of non-State actors.

The non-proliferation regime based on the NPT was facing unprecedented challenges, he said.  How those challenges were dealt with would determine not only the future of the Treaty, but also the international security environment.  The legitimacy of any action concerning non-proliferation would suffer as long as the weapon States disregarded their obligations and responsibilities, which were yet to be translated into concrete action in carrying out the disarmament process.  The third session of the Preparatory Committee for the NPT Review, to be held in April 2004, would be of crucial importance.  To make substantive progress and, thus, eventually a successful outcome of the 2005 Review Conference, it was necessary to first of all acknowledge the NPT’s shortcomings and strive to achieve a more equitable regime that would address the legitimate interests of the vast majority of States parties.

Together with other countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, he stressed the significance of achieving universal adherence to the CTBT, including by all the nuclear-weapon States.  He also believed that, if the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realized, continued commitment of all States signatories to nuclear disarmament was essential.  While welcoming the Moscow Treaty, it lacked most of the standard provisions of a bilateral nuclear arms control treaty, or any reference to an exchange of data or verification mechanisms.  The Russian Federation and the United States should take further steps to improve the Treaty.

Among positive developments, he mentioned the progress with regard to chemical weapons and regional arms control and disarmament efforts in many parts of the globe.  In the field of conventional weapons, his delegation was also pleased to note the successful conclusion of the first biennial meeting mandated by the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.  Finally, he drew attention to the fact that, despite the adoption of Assembly resolution 57/61 on the convening of the fourth special session on disarmament, consensus had not been achieved.  Those efforts must continue.  Indeed, they must be intensified, because the session offered an opportunity to review the most critical aspects of the process of disarmament and mobilize the international community in favour of the elimination of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and control and reduction of conventional weapons.

MILOS ALCALAY (Venezuela) said that, since general and complete disarmament was a national objective enshrined in the Venezuelan Constitution, his country had actively worked towards that goal.  In that context, expressing his support for the NPT, he called for it to become a universal treaty and for the creation of a legally binding instrument that would require the nuclear Powers to not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear States.  He also told delegates that, last year, his country had become a party to the CTBT.

Because arms races endangered humanity, he welcomed agreements dedicated to creating nuclear-weapon-free zones.  Such zones promoted international peace and security and, therefore, he hoped that more countries would join them.  Regarding outer space, he supported the Sino-Russian proposal to create an international convention to prevent the deployment of weapons in outer space.  After all, resources from outer space should benefit all countries, he said.

With respect to small arms and light weapons, he said the problem must be approached in a general and well balanced manner, with individual countries’ specifications taken into account.  For its part, his country had enacted specific disarmament legislation and had destroyed many weapons that had been possessed illegally.  Regarding landmines, Venezuela was working with the Organization of American States (OAS) to help demine Central America.  Within its own territory, it had already destroyed many mines.  Before concluding, he proposed the creation of an international humanitarian fund, which would use money gained from reductions in military expenditures to alleviate poverty throughout the world.

Right of Reply

JON YONG RYONG (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that he categorically rejected the allegations made by some delegations regarding his country.  The nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula had been triggered by the hostile stance of the United States against his country, its threats of a pre-emptive strike and hostile efforts by the United States to isolate his country politically, economically and militarily.  Under those circumstances, the effort to have deterrence against the United States deserved to be classified as a right to self-defence and did not go against international law.  Any assertion that the United States could threaten and attack other countries, while they could not act in self-defence, was not acceptable to any sovereign State.

Today, some delegations had not mentioned a single word about the threat posed by the United States, he continued, but had expressed their concern over his country’s actions.  Such statements would not help to resolve the issue.  As for the withdrawal from the NPT, the Treaty had been used by the United States to stifle his country.  Under such circumstances, his Government had been compelled to exercise its legitimate right to withdraw from the NPT to defend its sovereignty.  His Government had also made it clear that it would abandon its nuclear programme, if the United States would clearly indicate its intention to coexist peacefully and change its hostile policies.  For the countries who had expressed concern over the situation, it was important to clearly understand the issue and urge the United States to change its hostile policy towards his country.

* *** *