FIRST COMMITTEE, ‘CUSTODIAN’ OF INTERNATIONAL DISARMAMENT STRUCTURE, MUST ENSURE INTEGRITY, RELEVANCE, DELEGATES TOLD

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

4^th Meeting (AM)

FIRST COMMITTEE, ‘CUSTODIAN’ OF INTERNATIONAL DISARMAMENT STRUCTURE,

MUST ENSURE INTEGRITY, RELEVANCE, DELEGATES TOLD

As custodians of an edifice of disarmament agreements built up over decades, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) must be vigilant in ensuring the integrity and relevance of that structure, without which everyone would be more vulnerable to the threat or use of force, the Committee was told today during its general debate.

Asserting that there was no substitute for the basic norms embodied in the multilateral structure, Canada’s representative referred to the announced withdrawal of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) on 10 January as a “bitter setback” to universalizing that nuclear-free enterprise.  Similarly discouraging was that States continued to “sacrifice their treasure to the false gods of nuclear armament at the cost of human development”, and devised new types of nuclear weapons and applications, rather than concentrate on their progressive and systematic elimination.  The sooner nuclear arms were added to the “WMD scrap heap” the better.  

Another grave menace, stressed the speaker from Ghana, was the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, which undermined stability and sustainable development in Africa, particularly in the West African subregion.  There were more than 500 million light weapons in circulation worldwide, beyond the control of States, with 30 million of them in Africa, and 8 million in West Africa alone.  Nowhere had their damaging consequences been felt more than in Liberia and the Mano River Union countries.  Now that the conflict in Liberia was under control, urgent attention should be given to curbing the arms proliferation in the subregion, including by tightening legal controls on the manufacture and possession of firearms and ammunitions, increasing global transparency on the licit trade, and the creation by arms producing States of a formal register of arms brokers.

Also highlighting the immediate need to address the small arms issue was the Permanent Observer of the Holy See, pointing out that such weapons killed more than half a million people each year, 90 per cent of them civilians.  He sought greater recognition of the interdependence of domestic laws and international policies, and of the legal and illegal small arms markets.  Two things were badly needed –- greater responsibility on the part of States for illicit transfers, and a legally binding agreement on the international arms trade.

The representative of Mongolia expressed alarm that global military expenditures were reaching an incredible $1 trillion, at a time when hunger and poverty plagued more than half the world’s population.  The most important task was to secure strict observance and effective implementation of all international disarmament agreements, first of all the NPT.  He hailed nuclear-weapon-free zones as important non-proliferation measures, which now cover more than 100 States, and said his country, together with the United Nations, was working to institutionalize its own nuclear-weapon-free status, an endeavour that Mongolia initiated in the General Assembly in 1992.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Costa Rica, Qatar, Zambia, Uruguay, Belarus, and Brazil.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 9 October, to continue its general debate.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue its general debate on all disarmament and related international security items.

A number of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation agreements will be under consideration, among them the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  At the 2000 Review Conference, the nuclear-weapon States agreed to an “unequivocal undertaking” to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and towards that goal, to 13 specific steps.  Those included support for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Multilateral agreements banning the development of other weapons of mass destruction will also be discussed, such as:  the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention); and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention).

The creation and consolidation of nuclear-weapon-free zones will also be considered.  Existing zones include the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga), the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Bangkok), and the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba).

Additionally, the countries of the Central Asian region -- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan –- last year agreed on the text of a treaty to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia, and that the signing should take place as soon as possible.

The President of Mongolia declared the territory of Mongolia a nuclear-weapon-free zone in October 1992 at the General Assembly.  As a result of Mongolia's intensive consultations, the five nuclear-weapon States under the NPT, as well as the Non-Aligned Movement, welcomed the declaration.  Convinced that its status would be more credible if it were internationally recognized, Mongolia proposed at the United Nations that it be recognized as a single-State nuclear-weapon-free zone.  The five nuclear-weapon States decided, as an exception, to give it a nuclear-weapon-free status, taking into account Mongolia's geopolitical situation.

Last year, the First Committee adopted a resolution without a vote, welcoming the efforts of Member States to cooperate with Mongolia in that regard and the progress made in consolidating Mongolia’s international security.

The Committee will also consider implementation of the programme of action adopted at the first-ever global Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, held in New York in July 2001.  During the First Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the 2001 Programme of Action held in July in New York, progress was noted in implementing the action plan.

Discussions will also continue on the subject of landmines, in the context of the two instruments to ban or limit their use:  Protocol II of the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), a partial ban negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament; and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention), a total ban agreed to in Oslo as part of the so-called "Ottawa process", which entered into force on 1 March 1999.

(For additional background, see Press Release GA/DIS/3247 issued 3 October.)

Statements

BRUNO STAGNO UGARTE (Costa Rica) said disarmament, demilitarization, and the reduction of military expenditures were all vital for international peace.  Telling delegates that, in his region, Panama and his own country had already abolished their armies, he went on to explain that such policies allowed for resources to be allocated to more pressing social and developmental needs.  Continuing to highlight his region’s progress in the field of disarmament, he said that last month the Central American Presidents had all adopted a Nicaraguan proposal calling for greater arms controls and limitations.  He also noted that all of Latin America and the Caribbean had ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

Despite such regional advances, he expressed regret that the Conference on Disarmament remained deadlocked and unable to make progress on implementing the  13 steps agreed upon at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.  In that context, he urged States to commit to negotiations that could lead to true disarmament agreements.  He also urged States that possessed nuclear weapons to take concrete and credible steps towards nuclear disarmament.  Renouncing the policies of certain States that were trying to develop nuclear weapons, he reminded delegates that the NPT was binding.  The international community, therefore, could not tolerate anything less than full compliance.  He added that it was unacceptable for a few States to prevent the Treaty from becoming universal.

Expressing support for the prohibition of weapons transfers to terrorists or governments that committed systematic human rights violations, he mentioned that his Government, along with non-governmental organizations and several Nobel laureates, had drafted a framework convention on international arms transfers.   He hoped the draft would become a model for internationally binding agreements concerned with regulating the arms trade.  Such agreements were important, after all, because multilateralism was the only way to achieve true disarmament and non-proliferation.

JAMAL NASSER AL-BADER (Qatar) said it was natural for the international community to look forward to a world free of weapons of mass destruction and arms races, in which generations lived in security, unthreatened by terrorist groups.  Nevertheless, such a world was difficult to achieve, given the fact that some States still insisted on possessing and developing nuclear weapons.  In that regard, he criticized certain major powers, which wanted to monopolize such weapons without sharing important technology.  Declaring that such States should voluntarily abandon their nuclear weapons, as South Africa had done, he stated that the possession of weapons of mass destruction by any State was a blatant act of “muscle flexing.”

Turning to his own region, the Middle East, he expressed support for a nuclear-weapon-free zone there.  In that context, he noted that all regional players had been encouraged by the General Assembly to establish such a zone and subject their nuclear facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.  Nevertheless, one State had not cooperated in that regard, and that was Israel.  Criticizing the fact that Israel seemed to be untouched by international pressure, he warned delegates that the power imbalance in the Middle East, exacerbated by Israel’s weaponry, threatened the stability of the entire region.

Regarding chemical and biological weapons, as well as landmines and small arms and light weapons, he stated that they all represented grave threats to humanity.  It was, thus, important for States, especially those that manufactured such weapons, to accede to the Conventions that dealt with them, as his own country had done.  He also stressed that confidence building was an important tool, since mistrust and fear of other countries promoted arms races. Additionally, political problems had to be solved before breakthroughs in disarmament could be expected.  In that regard, he voiced support for efforts to forge stronger economic links between States.  After all, strong economic ties often led to closer political links.

CHOISUREN BAATAR (Mongolia) said that suggesting that the meeting was taking place at an important juncture in international relations did not convey the urgency facing the world community.  Global military expenditures were expected to far exceed the cold war record, reaching an incredible $1 trillion, at a time when hunger and poverty plagued more than half the world’s population.  No progress had been made in reducing the arsenals of, and curbing the spread of, weapons of mass destruction, which, along with their delivery means, gravely threatened international peace and security.  The most important task was to secure strict observance and effective implementation of all international disarmament agreements, first of all the NPT.

He said that the “creeping retreat from nuclear disarmament”, to which several speakers had alluded in the past, in the form of a revision of military doctrine -- which lowered the threshold and possible use of nuclear weapons and of their spread -- should not erode the credibility and effectiveness of the NPT.  To demonstrate the seriousness of the commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the nuclear-weapon States must take more concrete and practical steps.  Any measure implemented by them aimed at a drastic reduction and eventual elimination of their nuclear arsenals would be a genuine and tangible contribution.  The safeguards system of the IAEA, including the Additional Model Protocol, was an important pillar of the global non-proliferation regime, which should be signed by all States.

He also sought effective control over tactical nuclear weapons and for a reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons.  According to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), tactical nuclear weapons, due to their forward basing and often inadequate physical protection, were vulnerable to theft and unauthorized use, and were a very attractive target for non-State actors.  Among possible measures to reinforce the control regime over those arms, UNIDIR cited reaffirmation by the United States and the Russian Federation of their continued commitment to the 1991/1992 unilateral declarations, strengthening the informal regime for tactical nuclear arms through additional legal instruments, and introducing transparency measures.

He said that the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones was an important non-proliferation measure.  The number of States covered by those zones now exceeded 100.  Mongolia warmly welcomed the agreement by the five Central Asian States to conclude a treaty establishing such a zone in Central Asia.  In conjunction with Mongolia’s properly institutionalized nuclear-weapon-free status, that new treaty would establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in that vast and volatile region, thereby making a valuable contribution to turning Central Asia into a zone of peace and predictability.  Mongolia, together with the relevant United Nations bodies, was working to find ways to properly institutionalize its nuclear-weapon-free status.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said that, as custodians of an edifice built up over decades, the First Committee must be vigilant in ensuring the integrity of the structure and its relevance under current conditions.  That required preventive maintenance, as well as the occasional renovation and new addition.  There was no substitute, however, for the basic norms and commitments embodied in that multilateral structure.  Without its shelter, everyone would be more vulnerable to the blasts of the threat or use of force.  The challenges were evident; the withdrawal of a State party from the NPT was a bitter setback to the enterprise to make that keystone of the nuclear-free construction a universal one.

He said it was similarly discouraging to see States “sacrifice their treasure to the false gods of nuclear armament at the cost of human development”, or to consider devising new types of nuclear weapons and applications, rather than concentrate on their progressive and systematic elimination.  There was no escaping the reality that premising security on the existence of nuclear weapons was a dangerous approach, fraught with the risk of annihilation.  The sooner nuclear arms were added to the “WMD scrap heap” the better.  In addition to the dangers of State use of those weapons, the Committee must now confront the risks of use by terrorists and other non-State actors.  The only sure solution to that problem was ensuring the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, according to international law.

Without diminishing one iota from the seriousness of the threats and challenges to the enterprise before us, it was necessary to remind the public and each other that progress was being made in domains affecting human security worldwide.  For example, there had been important new adherents to the central non-proliferation and disarmament conventions, and a significant new code of conduct had been launched to start addressing the major role that ballistic missiles played in the current security environment.  He was committed to playing an active role in promoting non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament across a wide spectrum of sectors.  He was also determined to strengthen the bans on weapons of mass destruction and to advance the promising conventional arms control agenda, as well as to contribute to the efficacy of United Nations and multilateral disarmament machinery.

FELIPE PAOLILLO (Uruguay) said that, despite the ever-changing environment in which humankind lived, the principles and values that governed human nature remained constant.  Thus, in response to fear and security challenges, it was natural for protection strategies to arise.  Nevertheless, it was now time for those strategies to evolve from imperfect and fragile unilateral initiatives into the more complex mechanisms of multilateralism, he said.  After all, global security was interconnected and, therefore, everybody’s concern.

The very fact that delegates were gathered here today demonstrated the need to perfect multilateralism, which now seemed to be elusive, he continued.  In that regard, he regretted that political will, which had been vibrant in the past, had seemed to dissipate.  He criticized the irony of States demanding action from the United Nations, while refusing to provide the necessary tools for engagement.  Such refusal was evident in the dismal performances of the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission, as well as the NPT’s lack of universality and the failure of the CTBT to enter into force.

Highlighting progress in his region, he said his country belonged to a zone of peace, which had been created by the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), and the world’s first nuclear-weapon-free zone.  Such achievements had been made possible by his Government’s faith in a common global security system.  In that context, he appealed to Member States to follow suit and rekindle the collective spirit of compromise that characterized the very being of the United Nations.

IDIRISU M. BIYIRA (Ghana) said that the proliferation of light weapons and illicit arms trafficking was a grave menace to stability, peace, and sustainable development in Africa, particularly in the West African subregion.  Although those did not in themselves cause conflict and criminal activity, their wide availability, accumulation and illicit flows, especially in conflict zones, escalated conflicts, undermined peace agreements, intensified violence, impeded economic and social development, and hindered the development of social stability.  There were more than 500 million light weapons in circulation around the world, beyond the control of States, with 30 million of them in Africa, and 8 million in West Africa alone.

He said there were also an estimated 10,000 mercenaries on the African continent.  Their easy availability and the proliferation of mercenaries had helped to generate and prolong conflicts in West Africa.  That problem should be addressed by tightening legal controls on the manufacture, transfer, dealing, brokering and possession of firearms and ammunitions, including those in possession of States.  A useful approach would be to increase international transparency on the licit trade and strengthen national legislation governing the arms trade and possession.  Now that the conflict in Liberia was under control, attention should be given to the urgent need to curb the proliferation of small arms and light weapons in the subregion.  Nowhere had the damaging consequences of those weapons been felt more than in Liberia and the Mano River Union countries, where they had done so much harm to innocent people and property. 

He would work with the international community to identify ways in which the illicit brokering in those weapons could be prevented and eradicated.  Illicit arms brokering played a key role in facilitating illegal arms transfers to groups that were prevented from buying them legally, such as embargoed States and groups, insurgents, and organized criminals and terrorists.  Arms producing States should establish a formal register of arms brokers, which would be a very useful way of keeping those brokers informed of their responsibilities.  Also, the ability to strike people or companies from the register would send a strong signal to them that, wherever they were operating, governments were able to effectively monitor and control their activities.

ALEKSANDR BAICHOROV (Belarus) said that this year, the international authority of the United Nations had been seriously tested by the events in Iraq.  As a result, small and vulnerable States had lost confidence in the United Nations system and were turning instead to subregional military and political alliances.  In that context, he called for the reform of the field of international security, arms control, and disarmament, which was currently going through a crisis.  It was time for the First Committee to adapt its agenda to the world’s new realities, he said.

Regarding the CTBT, he called upon all States that had not yet done so to accede to it as soon as possible.  He also welcomed China’s intention to continue with the ratification process.  Turning to the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices, he called it one of the most important issues up for discussion.  In that regard, he urged the Conference on Disarmament to start negotiations on the topic without delay.  He also called for a ban on the deployment of weapons in outer space.

With respect to landmines, he told delegates that his Government had recently deposited its instruments of accession to the Ottawa Convention.  Belarus had thus committed itself to destroying its landmine stockpiles within four years.  In order to complete that task, he said his country would require considerable financial and technological resources.  After all, it had inherited over 4 million anti-personnel mines after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.  Noting that there were important ecological concerns that had to be addressed in the destruction of the mines, he asked Governments, international agencies, and non-governmental organizations to heed his requests for assistance.

MWELWA C. MUSAMBACHIME (Zambia) said that threats to international peace and security had not only been exacerbated by the failure of the international community to prevent potential conflicts, but, to a large extent, to the inability of the disarmament machinery to reach consensus on a comprehensive agenda.  He hoped the Committee would progress in its efforts to find ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament and practical confidence-building measures in the conventional arms field.  He also hoped the Committee would enhance the package proposal to the Conference on Disarmament by the ambassadors of Algeria, Belgium, Chile, Colombia and Sweden, aimed at “undoing the deadlock”.

He said he also supported the creation of four ad hoc committees on negative security assurances, the cessation of the nuclear arms race, a ban on the production of fissile material, and prevention of an outer space arms race.  The proposed special coordinators on radiological weapons and on a comprehensive programme of disarmament would enhance the work of the ad hoc committees.  The international collective security architecture, built and strengthened over decades, offered only a “minimum veneer” of security.  In fact, all nations stood vulnerable to one threat or another.  To escape to safety required concerted universal efforts to strengthen existing security regimes and arrangements.  There was also a need for building new security regimes to address emerging threats to peace and security.

RONALDO MOTA SARDENBERG (Brazil) said that one of the most terrifying possibilities was that non-State actors might acquire and use weapons of mass destruction.  No less challenging was the lack of progress, even setbacks, in the disarmament field, particularly nuclear disarmament.  He was seriously disappointed at disturbing signs of lack of interest in achieving concrete progress within the multilateral framework, despite multiple expressions of commitment to action.  Equally disquieting was the recent trend to shun the multilateral approach to issues of universal importance.  Given the need for transparency, stability and predictability, the questions of disarmament and proliferation were better addressed on a multilateral basis and in a treaty-based framework.

He said that strict compliance by all States parties with obligations entered into in the major instruments in the field of weapons of mass destruction, as well as universal adherence to them, was the sole possible assurance of a more stable and safe world.  Universalization of and full compliance with the NPT by all parties, including through the 13 practical steps towards nuclear disarmament adopted by consensus in 2000, were central to the commitment to strengthen that Treaty.  He called on Israel, India, and Pakistan to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states and to place their nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. 

He also called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to reconsider the announcement of its intention to withdraw from the NPT and on Iran to cooperate fully and immediately with the IAEA to resolve issues arising from implementation of its obligations.  The shadow of threats to peace and security loomed large at present; the Security Council remained divided, negotiations on disarmament were stagnating, if not moving backwards, and there were growing doubts about the political fate of the General Assembly, including the First Committee.  Yet, there were some positive trends, including that there seemed to be wide agreement that the principle of multilateralism played a central, active role, and that the United Nations was a much needed centre for harmonizing the actions of all nations, as foreseen in its Charter.

CELESTINO MIGLIORE (Holy See) said it seemed impossible to have nations lay down their arms in the current set of international relationships. He attributed that trend to the possibility that sufficient assurance had not been given to States and their leaders that security could be obtained without the never-ending development and production of weapons.  He added that aspiring to general and complete disarmament necessarily entailed showing respect for the life, dignity, and human rights of individuals, as well as rejecting violence, promoting freedom and tolerance, and developing harmony between ethnic, religious, cultural and social groups.  That agenda was indeed vast, but if the world community did not embrace it, its peoples would continue to suffer the ravages of war.

He stressed that small arms ought to occupy delegates’ immediate attention, since such weapons killed more than half a million people each year, over 90 per cent of whom were civilians.  In that regard, he sought greater recognition of the interdependence of domestic laws and international policies, as well as the close relationships between legal and illegal small arms markets.  Many illicit transfers, after all, started out as legal ones.  Thus, two things were badly needed –- greater responsibility on the part of States for illicit transfers, and a legally binding agreement on the international arms trade.  Also, it was important to note the effects of small arms proliferation on social and economic development.

Criticizing the fact that many arms control treaties contained loopholes and weaknesses with respect to compliance, verification and enforcement; he maintained that such inadequacies should not divert attention away from the seriousness of the threats posed by such weapons.  In that respect, he said States should work on developing interdiction policies and making transparent, verifiable, and irreversible reductions in offensive weapons.  He also noted that, in light of new multilateral security assurances and positive internal political reforms, such weapons were not even needed in the first place.

* *** *