NON-PROLIFERATION FRAMEWORK BESET BY CRISIS OF IDENTITY, RELEVANCE, EFFECTIVENESS, DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE TOLD

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

9^th Meeting (PM)

NON-PROLIFERATION FRAMEWORK BESET BY CRISIS OF IDENTITY, RELEVANCE,

EFFECTIVENESS, DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE TOLD

The non-proliferation framework was beset with a crisis of identify, relevance and effectiveness, and its flawed foundations had revealed internal fissures that seemed to run deep, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) was told today, as it continued its general debate.

India’s representative said the shadowy and inscrutable spectre of “onward proliferation” among States parties to that framework and their apparent immunity from its provenance compounded the problem.  In today’s international system, ripe with suspicion and fear, the feeling of insecurity had not spared either the powerful or the weak in its all-pervasive embrace.  Multilateralism had also taken a beating.  With military power, reinforced with nuclear weapons, remaining a critical arbiter and shaper of global power equations, India had been compelled to exercise the nuclear-weapon option.

At a time when nuclear arsenals and new kinds of nuclear weapons were being developed, the Syrian representative asserted, other States were being pressured not to acquire their own means of defence and were prevented from using that technology for peaceful purposes.  Israel’s possession of a huge arsenal of non-conventional weapons, outside the regime established by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that flowed from accession to that Treaty, had contributed to distinguishing the region in a “horrifying” way.

Calling for the total elimination of mass destruction weapons, the representative of Kuwait said that now that the Iraqi regime, which had possessed those weapons and caused countless deaths, no longer existed, Israel was the only obstacle to ridding the Middle East of mass destruction weapons.  Israel was the only State in the region that possessed nuclear weapons, yet it had not acceded to the NPT, thereby jeopardizing regional balance.  He appealed to Member States to stop providing technological assistance to Israel’s nuclear programme, and he urged other States wishing to develop nuclear programmes to refrain from doing so.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia’s representative said a source of real surprise at a time when the IAEA was intensifying its monitoring and control of the relevant activities of States parties to the NPT, was the Agency’s failure to address Israel’s rejection of the Treaty.  He called on all States outside the NPT to adhere to it and to subject their nuclear facilities to international safeguards and controls.  Establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones were positive steps towards freeing the world of those weapons.  The Middle East had been unable to achieve that, however, because of Israel’s rejection of the voices of wisdom and reason emanating from numerous conferences and regional groups to refrain from developing and producing those weapons.

The representative of Israel said that not all States had equally noble intentions when they joined arms control treaties.  Some joined them only to obtain technology for military purposes under false pretexts.  Israel must face countries that had declared intentions to destroy it, as well as enemies that were constantly acting to terrorize its civilian population, and neighbours that had never given up their ambitions to develop their weapons of mass destruction capabilities.  In the face of attempts to weaken and limit Israel’s ability to defend itself, there was no building of confidence and hope, and the unavoidable result was less security and less stability.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Tunisia, Armenia, Colombia, Malawi, Guinea, Yemen, Dominican Republic, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Georgia, and Congo. The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Thursday, 16 October, to continue its general debate.

Background

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

Expected to be under consideration is the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).  Opened for signature in 1996, 169 States have signed it, and

105 have ratified it.  Of the States whose ratification is needed for its entry into force (the 44 Annex 2 States), 32 have ratified it.  Two nuclear Powers -– the United States and China -– have signed but not ratified the Treaty, and the United States no longer supports it.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India and Pakistan have not signed it.

Also up for discussion is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  With 188 State parties, it is the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the most widely subscribed to disarmament treaty, yet some believe it cemented the divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots” because it classified States according to their nuclear weapons status and ascribed different obligations to each.  The perception that it perpetuates the status quo has been expressed often in the Committee and will likely be a theme in its debate.  India, Israel, and Pakistan are not parties to the NPT.  Additionally, on 10 January, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea declared “an automatic and immediate effectuation of its withdrawal from the NPT”.

Attention will also be focused on the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an independent intergovernmental, science and technology-based organization in the United Nations family that serves as a focal point for nuclear cooperation.  Among its tasks is verifying, through its inspection system, that States comply with their commitments under the NPT and other non-proliferation agreements to use nuclear material and facilities only for peaceful purposes.

The Agency's safeguards system comprises extensive technical measures for independently verifying the correctness and completeness of the declarations made by States about their nuclear material and activities.  Since 1992 -- in the aftermath of the discovery of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme -- the Board of Governors of the Agency has adopted or endorsed measures to strengthen the safeguards system.  Under a Model Additional Protocol adopted in 1997 that includes short notice inspector access to any place on a nuclear site, the IAEA has continued to negotiate Additional Protocols with States to strengthen that system by verifying not only declared nuclear material and activities, but also the absence of undeclared material and activities.

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).

Delegates are also expected to refer to the Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament.  The Conference met in Geneva from 20 January to 28 March, 12 May to 27 June, and 28 July to 10 September.  It was unable to agree on the programme of work and did not establish or re-establish any mechanism on any of its specific agenda items, which included cessation of the nuclear arms race.

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).

On conventional weapons, reference might be made to the First Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, which was held in New York in July 2003.  There, after just two years of activity, over 100 States presented national status reports.

The 2003 Group of Governmental Experts appointed by the Secretary-General to review the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, which adopted its report by consensus on 1 August, recommended that Man-Portable Air-Defence Systems (MANPADS) be included within the scope of the Register, particularly in light of recent reports of attempts by groups to acquire them and use them against commercial airliners.  The Register is a voluntary reporting instrument on the international transfers of major conventional arms, namely battle tanks, large-calibre artillery systems, armoured combat vehicles, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and missiles and their launchers.

So far, 164 Member States have participated at least once in this voluntary reporting instrument, while a record number of 126 States submitted reports on arms transfers in 2001.  To date, 117 countries have participated in 2003.

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

SHEEL KANT SHARMA (India) said the Committee was meeting against a backdrop of serious challenges to international security and an abiding sense of crisis in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation.  That crisis was characterized by the following:  the lack of a viable security paradigm to replace the one espoused during the cold war; terrorism and its connection to weapons of mass destruction; failed States emerging as terrorist havens; a renewed quest for new armaments; and a heightened predisposition to respond to perceived threats with force.

Stressing that global insecurity stemmed from different sources, but was still creating an international environment full of suspicion and fear, he noted that even powerful countries had been unable to avoid that anxiety.  That was especially true since non-State actors were now in a position to acquire dangerous technologies that were not even available to many States.  Such factors had given existing multilateral institutions a beating.  And that was worrying, given the fact that such institutions were necessary for the security of the weak and dispossessed.  In that context, he expressed the expectation that States would respect international law and move forward in the march towards disarmament and non-proliferation.

Declaring that progress in the important field of nuclear disarmament had been limited to the two biggest possessors of such weapons, he stated that, since the end of the cold war, military strength and nuclear weapons had remained critical factors in the shaping of global power equations.  It was that simple fact that had led his country to exercise its nuclear option.  He stressed, however, that, in fashioning its nuclear doctrine, India had only aimed to create a “minimum credible deterrent”, characterized by a defensive posture, restraint, responsibility, a no-first-use policy, and a decision to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States, except in the event of an attack by weapons of mass destruction.

He noted with concern that today’s global non-proliferation framework was hampered by a crisis of identity, relevance, and effectiveness.  Nevertheless, despite its flawed foundations, States should honour the obligations to which they had committed under international instruments, he said.  They should not fall into the trap of “onward proliferation”, which he called a “shadowy and inscrutable spectre”.

Emphasizing that his Government remained committed to its principled stand on global nuclear disarmament, he remarked that progressively lower levels of arms throughout the world and imaginative controls over them would guarantee greater security for everyone.  At the same time, the evolving nature of threats required new and innovative ways to deal with them.  Nevertheless, it was important for such methods to be consistent with the United Nations Charter and international law, he said.

He maintained that, so long as nuclear weapons remained, all States that had them needed to take steps to reduce the risk of their accidental or unauthorized use.  In that regard, his delegation would present a draft resolution entitled “Reducing nuclear danger” to the Committee and hoped it would receive wide support.  Such steps to curtail risks should be based on multilateralism and verifiability, as that would lead to greater confidence among States, he said.

Remarking that his country, aware of its responsibilities as a possessor of advanced technologies, had proved to be a responsible and credible partner against proliferation, he stressed that denying technology to responsible States only served to divert international attention away from the dubious actions of States that were not as responsible.  In that context, he called for a more transparent and effective system of export controls that would not hinder the sharing of peaceful technologies.  Nevertheless, it was also important to monitor global developments in science and technology, as they related to military matters.

Turning to the Chemical Weapons Convention, he reminded delegates that his country was one of the original States parties.  For its part, India had kept records of its compliance with destruction-related obligations.  However, it was important to verify that others were not impairing the Convention’s integrity. Regarding the Biological Weapons Convention, he expressed deep concern over the lack of substantive progress in strengthening it.

Recent worries about rising global military expenditures reminded him of old balance-of-power issues during the cold war, he said.  In that context, he stated that the peace that had arrived in the West after the cold war had seemed to escape his region, as well as the entire continent of Asia.  His Government had reduced military spending during the 1990s, despite continued high amounts in neighbouring countries, he said.  In addition, India’s military budget, as a percentage of its gross domestic product, was presently much lower than most major countries and was closely monitored by parliamentary procedures.  Stressing that his country had never joined any arms race, he said global disarmament and non-proliferation must be pursued in a multilateral manner that was equitable, transparent, and inclusive.

ARYE MEKEL (Israel) said that the menace posed by Saddam Hussein to the peoples of the region and to international stability had been removed.  At the same time, however, the continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means, and actions by some States to violate their international commitments, was now widely recognized.  That reality, together with the fear of terrorism directed at civilians by means of MANPADS, for example, and, in particular, the possibility that terrorists would start using nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, presented innocent civilians worldwide with a more concrete threat.  Hopefully, the world was now on the verge of a conceptual change, which, next year, would produce more focused and practical actions to overcome those very real threats.

He said that the continued proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles, together with the reluctance of certain States to comply with their international commitments, gravely harmed the credibility of disarmament and arms control efforts and their ability to promote security and stability in the Middle East.  The time had come to admit that not all States had equally noble intentions when they committed themselves to arms control treaties.  Regrettably, some joined those arrangements only to obtain technology for military purposes under false pretexts.  In the attempt to promote multilateral agreements, however, it should be remembered that those were not, in themselves, the goal, but merely one means to an end.

The reality of the Middle East was unique, he said.  Israel must face countries and organizations that had declared intentions to destroy it, as well as enemies that were constantly acting to terrorize and harm Israel’s civilian population, and neighbours that had never given up their ambitions to develop their weapons of mass destruction capabilities, either clandestinely or openly.  In the face of attempts to undermine, weaken and limit Israel’s ability to defend itself, the process of building confidence, reconciliation and hope was absent and the unavoidable result was less security and less stability.  In that reality, the options of unilateral transparency, unilateral disarmament, and unilateral arms limitations could not contribute to peace, security and stability, and might actually escalate conflict.

He said that if there was to be any chance of common security, arms control and disarmament in the Middle East, all peoples of the region must come to terms with the existence of the State of Israel, establish a stable relationship of peace and conciliation and cease their political and military attempts to threaten its existence.  The next step would then be to embark on a joint process for regional security building.  Concurrently, it was important to act with courage and determination with regard to the trend toward proliferation among the States of the region, as well as their reluctance to comply with their arms control commitments, and their tendency to shelter and support terrorist organizations. 

For its part, Israel had consistently attached great importance to the proliferation challenge and had placed it high on its security policy priorities, he said.  Accordingly, Israel fully supported the efforts of potential suppliers to enhance cooperation and coordination, in order to improve export controls over sensitive items.  Over the years, the Committee had become an arena for wrangling between different interest groups and States.  That situation was particularly true in the case of Israel, where resolutions had usually amounted to no more than counterproductive condemnation, which was divorced from the reality in the region.  The Committee should reassess its approach, so that the real threats posed to the security of humankind were effectively addressed. 

ALI HACHAMI (Tunisia) said that, in the new international context, the role of the United Nations had grown in the field of disarmament and international security.  Specifically, the Organization was in an ideal position to enhance the role of international law, promote dialogue between civilizations, and help address excessive economic imbalances throughout the world, which often fuelled hatred.  Declaring that resources set aside for military budgets should be diverted towards social concerns, he said he supported all efforts at the international and regional level to promote multilateralism in the realm of disarmament and non-proliferation.

Calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, he regretted that the CTBT had still not entered into force.  However, that was not his only disappointment.  In that regard, he also noted with concern that the verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention had not been adopted, the Conference on Disarmament continued to encounter problems, and States had failed to reach a consensus with respect to holding a fourth special session on disarmament in the General Assembly.  Turning to landmines, he told delegates that his Government, which had ratified the Ottawa Convention, had completed the destruction of its stockpiles before its established deadline.  He also lauded the successful meeting recently held in Bangkok to review the Convention.

Regarding nuclear-weapon-free zones, he said that, as long as the States involved freely arrived at their own agreements, they represented an important method to promote non-proliferation.  Unfortunately, however, in the Middle East, Israel, despite numerous appeals from countries of the region and the General Assembly, was preventing the establishment of such a zone.  Thus, Israel was posing a serious obstacle to disarmament and lasting peace in the region.  In that regard, he called on the international community to take credible steps to persuade Israel to disarm.  Double standards, after all, would not help the region.  Turning to his own subregion, he informed delegates that his Government was playing an active role in the Arab Maghreb Union and working towards a stronger partnership in the Mediterranean.

AHMAD ALHARIRI (Syria) said that the majority of States in their statements had referred to the importance of returning to the principles of collective action, in accordance with international legality, and the need to stave off unilateralism and the threat of the use of force, as that led to endless chaos and instability.  The priorities in the disarmament field had been set in the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, but the lack of any political will among some powers had impeded those efforts and blocked the Conference on Disarmament from fulfilling its responsibilities.  At a time when nuclear arsenals were being developed, along with new kinds of nuclear weapons, pressures were being put on States not to acquire their own means of defence, in contravention of the United Nations Charter and international law. 

He said that those States that had acquired such weapons outside the NPT regime were being deliberately ignored and given support, at a time when Member States were being prevented from using technology for peaceful and development purposes.  He supported the holding of the fourth special session on disarmament to evaluate implementation from the first.  The Middle East was distinguished by “something horrifying”, in terms of the threat to regional and international stability and security.  Israel possessed a huge arsenal of conventional and non-conventional weapons and it continued to occupy Arab territories and wage wars on Arab States.  Its expansionist and aggressive policies against Arab States were entrenched and its continuous rejection of the NPT and safeguards regime of the IAEA threatened global security. 

All of the countries of the region had adhered to the NPT, except for Israel, which had also impeded the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone there, he said.  Syria had presented its initiative before the Security Council last June to eradicate all forms of mass destruction weapons from the region.  He reaffirmed Syria’s call, once again, to the international community to support that initiative and give it the necessary momentum to bring it about.  In light of Israel’s rejection of the relevant Council resolutions and the outcome of the Madrid Conference and the Arab initiative, adopted at the Beirut summit in 2002, its continued aggressive expansionist policies and exportation of its internal crises, Syria had taken refuge at the United Nations, as the appropriate forum to condemn Israel and deter it from continuing its aggressive policies.

TAREQ ALBANI (Kuwait) said the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Nobuyasu Abe, had warned delegates earlier that terrorist organizations, which did not necessarily correspond to any religious or national borders, might be able to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  In that context, he called for the elimination of such arms.  He understood the situation only too well, as his country had been threatened by both terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  That is why his Government had ratified the NPT, the CTBT, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention, as well as cooperated with the IAEA safeguards system.

Turning to his own region, he noted with concern that Israel was the only State in the region that possessed nuclear weapons, had not acceded to the NPT, and jeopardized regional balance.  In addition, it continued to violate several international resolutions, despite numerous appeals to disarm and follow international norms.  Moreover, because the Iraqi regime, which had possessed weapons of mass destruction and caused countless deaths, did not exist anymore, Israel remained the only obstacle to a Middle East completely free of weapons of mass destruction.  In that context, he appealed to Member States to stop providing technological assistance to Israel’s nuclear programme.  He also urged other States that wanted to develop nuclear programmes to refrain from doing so.

Unable to explain why some countries continued to possess nuclear weapons, he expressed hope that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would respect both the NPT and the comprehensive safeguards associated with the IAEA.  Such respect would promote peace and security on the Korean peninsula.  For its part, his own country would continue to make all possible efforts to strengthen peace in its region, especially in Iraq.  Specifically, it would continue supplying Iraq with financial aid, so that the Iraqi brothers would gain the sovereignty and stability that they deserved.

ABDULLAH AL-AIFANKSHI (Saudi Arabia) said he viewed with extreme concern the limited success achieved in disarmament.  That was due to the lack of balanced and objective mechanisms and controls that were not flawed with double standards.  His Government was determined to continue along the path of a consistent approach to international efforts, aimed at bringing about disarmament for all humanity.  It had taken all possible steps to combat the illicit small arms trade through the promulgation of many regulations and laws.  It had submitted a detailed report to the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs describing its regulations to secure control over the production, import, export and re-export of small arms.

He said he viewed with profound concern the crisis facing the Conference on Disarmament.  His Government had devoted full attention to abolishing weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East, including from the region of the Arab Gulf.  A source of real surprise, at a time when the IAEA was intensifying its monitoring and control of the relevant activities of States parties to the NPT, was that Agency’s failure to address Israel’s rejection of the NPT.  Hence, its nuclear programmes were still outside the full-scope safeguards of the IAEA.   It was very important to set benchmarks to bring about advances in the disarmament of mass destruction weapons.  He, therefore, called upon all States outside the NPT to start taking the necessary step towards adherence to it, and to subject their nuclear facilities to international safeguards and controls.

He said the Middle East had been unable to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone because of Israel’s rejection of the voices of wisdom and reason emanating from numerous conferences and regional groups to refrain from developing and producing those weapons.  Israel was the only State in the region that possessed nuclear and chemical weapons programmes outside international controls.  That Israeli position, and all justifications presented by it, had blatantly contradicted its claimed wish for peace.  Real peace must be based on confidence and good will among the countries of the region, and not on the threat of nuclear weapons.

He said that the escalation of Israel’s brutally repressive policies in the occupied Arab territories had returned the region to a state of crisis and tension and had obstructed efforts to evolve a just and lasting peace.  He called upon Israel to take the necessary practical steps, on an urgent basis, to adhere to the NPT and to subject its nuclear facilities to full-scope IAEA safeguards. 

ARMEN MARTIROSYAN (Armenia) said his country’s geographical location forced it to frequently confront the illicit trafficking of weapons, delivery systems and other sensitive materials.  In addition, nuclear safety continued to remain his Government’s highest priority.  That was why, since its birth, Armenia had refused to develop nuclear energy, except for peaceful purposes, and become the first State from the Commonwealth of Independent States to sign the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and its additional protocol with the IAEA.  It had also acceded to the NPT.

Expressing the belief that effective international export control regimes played an important role in advancing global disarmament and non-proliferation, he told delegates that his Government was enacting legislation and strengthening controls in order to allow for the legitimate use and trade of dual-use items and technologies.  Also, Armenia was regularly providing updated information to the United Nations Registry on Conventional Arms, in order to curb the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons.

Turning to landmines, he said the entry into force of the Ottawa Convention represented an important step forward in the quest to rid the world of such weapons.  In that context, he informed the Committee that his Government had, with support from the United States, established a demining centre, which trained military personnel in mine-clearing procedures.  Regarding the positive outcome of the first review conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention, he extolled the growing importance of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which strove to prevent the threat of chemical terror.

NICOLAS RIVAS (Colombia) called the Committee’s attention to the important contribution it should make to combat terrorism, which was today the most serious threat to international peace and security.  Preventing mass destruction weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists should be a priority of its agenda.  That was why Colombia had co-sponsored a resolution on that topic, introduced by India last year.  That was also why it had insisted on universal accession to the Biological Weapons Convention and the Convention on Certain Conventional weapons, as well as implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.  It had also insisted on the explicit ban on the use of mass destruction weapons and on restricting the development of new, related technologies. 

He said that countries in possession of chemical weapons should proceed to destroy them, in fulfilment of the Convention, and submit detailed plans on that destruction process.  Work should also progress on the inclusion of new arms within the scope of implementing the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and towards the adoption of new protocols in that field.  With regard to the Biological Weapons Convention, it was fundamental to advance on an agreement for a verification protocol.  All members of the international community should adhere to the NPT.  He also reiterated his total commitment to the CTBT, as an instrument towards the achievement of general and complete disarmament.  Specific steps should be identified and implemented to make possible Colombia’s ratification of that Treaty.

Reaffirming the need for all States to reach a renewed and firm commitment to multilateralism, he invited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to reassume its commitments under the NPT and allow inspections by the IAEA.  The development of nuclear weapons did not bring peace or consolidate security.  Peace and security today were not based only on military capacity, but mostly on political, economic and social factors, and particularly on good relations with neighbours, and the international community as a whole.  At the same time, he recognized the right of all States to develop nuclear programmes for peaceful purposes, and for that reason, he invited Iran to continue its cooperation with the inspectors to generate confidence and clarify doubts regarding its nuclear programme.

HASTINGS AMURANI-PHIRI (Malawi) said general and complete disarmament could only be achieved through universal, multilateral, and non-discriminatory negotiations.  In that context, he expressed disappointment with the failure of the Conference on Disarmament to make any significant progress.  He also urged the world’s major Powers to show flexibility and commitment to nuclear disarmament.  After all, in the current stalemate, international peace and security could never be achieved.

Turning to chemical weapons, he told delegates that three months ago his Government had established a national authority to deal with such arms, following several regional conferences of the African national authorities of the Chemical Weapons Convention.  The authority had crafted a plan of activities that it intended to carry out within the next year.  Those activities included:  preparing legislation; adopting and implementing the administrative and enforcement measures required by the Convention; disseminating information to Government offices, the media, and scientific research institutions; and touring other African countries that were States parties to the Convention and had already established national implementation measures.  Following this plan would require financial assistance, and he, therefore, appealed to the international community to provide aid.

Regarding landmines, he said that, as a State party to the Ottawa Convention, his country had welcomed a team of experts on a fact-finding mission from the United Nations Mine Action Group two months ago.  In that manner, Malawi had remained consistent with its desire to help rid the world of landmines, which continued to claim the lives of innocent women and children and hampered economic development.  Addressing small arms and light weapons, he called for more international cooperation to ensure greater transparency in arms transfers.

ALPHA OUMAR DIALLO (Guinea) said the world must be victorious in its struggle for peace.  In order for that dream to become a reality in today’s troubled world, unity must be strengthened and multilateral cooperation in disarmament must be promoted.  Nuclear arms limitations and reductions were a major concern, and universal ratification of the NPT must be encouraged, as well as the complete implementation of the IAEA safeguards system.  He supported all efforts aimed at defending the authority of that important legal instrument, as its application would ensure that the international non-proliferation regime was effective.  He appreciated that some States, at a high cost, had undertaken to dismantle their nuclear arsenal and ensure the careful processing of fissile material derived from those weapons.

Regarding the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, he appealed for further consultations in order to create new ones, such as in the Middle East.  Turning to biological and chemical weapons, he appealed urgently to all States for the full and effective application of the various conventions on the prohibition and destruction of those weapons.  On small arms, he said the large loss of human life in West Africa because of their continued proliferation was a sad reality.  A lasting solution required reinforced cooperation and implementation of the

2001 Action Programme.  Effective measures to control that traffic required close cooperation among States at all levels.  The international norms against the small arms proliferation were the accepted structures to aid that cooperation. 

In the West African subregion, he noted that that cooperation had taken shape with the creation in June 2002 of a network of national commissions to ensure coordination, complementarity and synergy between efforts made by the States concerned.  To ensure their effectiveness, he appealed to bilateral and multilateral partners to contribute the necessary financing and technical support.  He agreed with the conclusion of the inter-governmental expert group, aimed at developing an instrument for making and tracing illegal small arms.  The General Assembly should take a decision to commit States to such an instrument, under United Nations auspices.  All Member States should implement the Security Council resolution adopted in March during his presidency of that body, on the “proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and mercenary activities:  threat to peace and security in West Africa”.

ALI AL-AYASHI (Yemen) said his Government had been keen to support all efforts to maintain international peace and security.  That was why it was always among the first to sign disarmament-related and non-proliferation treaties.  Declaring that the United Nations had not worked hard enough to address the causes of war, he, nevertheless, supported the Organization in its disarmament efforts.  He added, however, that economic assistance to the world’s least developed countries could go a long way in helping to achieve international peace and security.

Turning to his own region, he said that, despite all efforts to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, Israel not only possessed such weapons, but also kept its reactors outside the international safeguards regime.  In that context, he called on the international community to pressure Israel to accede to the NPT and respect IAEA safeguards.

In his own country, he said the most pressing problem involved small arms and light weapons.  Bolstered by Yemen’s colonial history and the social characteristics of the Yemeni people, such weapons often fell into the hands of young people.  In that regard, he called for legal frameworks and regulations that would control the trade of such weapons and for the press and media to stop enhancing a culture of arms and violence.  While acknowledging that illegally trafficked small arms often fuelled conflicts, he was careful to state that they did not cause them.  Instead, conflicts were often caused by economic, social, financial, religious, ethnic, and educational problems.  That was clear in the current Palestinian situation.

Regarding landmines, he said his country had supported all efforts to eliminate that scourge.  That was why it had ratified the Ottawa Convention and destroyed its stockpiles with help from international agencies and friendly countries, such as the United States.  Pointing out that Yemen had been the first State party to the Convention to destroy all its stockpiles, he also told delegates that its program of providing social assistance to mine victims was among the most successful in the region.  Despite the need to eliminate such weapons, however, countries should be allowed to defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

JUAN RAMON GONZALEZ (Dominican Republic) said that solutions to the disarmament and security concerns had been slow in coming.  He appealed to those nations actively in mine production to join global efforts and provide expertise and funds for mine detection and destruction, particularly in developing countries suffering from those weapons.  In many countries, possession of a firearm was a security guarantee.  For some, it was even a symbol of power -- guns were preferred over jobs.  That might explain the reason why so many civilians had so many conventional weapons, which led to an increase in their illicit trafficking. 

He said his country had been developing a programme aimed at combating that culture.  It had increased its armed forces and police personnel and had collected more than 4,500 firearms.  It had also conducted surveillance of arsenals to ensure that licensing requirements were met.  The Inter-American Convention on the transfer and procurement of conventional weapons, while not a limiting Treaty, was a fundamental step in the right direction, because without transparency in procurement, it was not possible to reach agreement on inventories. 

The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean had expressed their wish to consolidate non-proliferation efforts through the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which had made a real contribution to global security, he said.  That Treaty had defined a frame of reference for other regions by establishing the first nuclear-weapon-free zone.  The CTBT went beyond the Treaty of Tlatelolco.  That important Treaty, as well as the NPT, were essential pillars of his country’s own security.  Despite the fact that the NPT was not yet universal, it had the greatest international acceptance among instruments in the disarmament field.  He was concerned, however, that States in a position to develop nuclear energy for military purposes were not yet parties to it.

Concerning radioactive waste, he stressed that his country depended largely on tourism, and, thus, the quality of its coastal waters was vital.  Any radioactive damage might destroy that important sector of its economy.  He, therefore, called for prompt implementation of mechanisms applicable to the transport of radioactive material and hazardous waste, as well as for the adoption of supplementary norms.  He was especially interested in matters pertaining to safeguards on the pollution of the marine environment, communication of disaster relief plans in dumping situations and the decontamination of contaminated areas. 

ALOUNKEO KITTIKHOUN (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) said it was distressing to note more violent conflicts, increased international tension, and greater terrorism in the world.  Recent events in the Middle East, for example, had challenged the international community and tested the principles of collective security.  Such negative developments were exacerbated by the lack of progress made in the field of disarmament.  For example, the Conference on Disarmament had not agreed upon a programme of work, and other multilateral bodies remained mired in deadlocks.

In order to move forward, the international community had to strengthen cooperation at all levels, he said.  But first, it needed to find an effective way to eliminate all nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction.  In that regard, he hoped that the draft resolutions sponsored by the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), on nuclear disarmament, would enjoy support from Member States, especially the nuclear-weapon States.  After all, the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against their use or the threat of their use, he said.

Recognizing the importance of nuclear-weapon-free zones in achieving comprehensive nuclear disarmament, he said his country had been active in ASEAN’s efforts towards establishing such a zone in his region.  Nevertheless, the said Treaty of Bangkok would not truly enter into force until the nuclear-weapon States acceded to the relevant protocol.  In that context, he called on the nuclear-weapon States that had not yet done so to follow China’s lead in acceding to it.

REVAZ ADAMIA (Georgia) said that not since the worst day of the cold war confrontation had the world’s security and stability been so challenged.  The threat of the possible spread of weapons of mass destruction demanded increased collective efforts.  September 11 had made abundantly clear the kind of danger to which the world community was exposed.  Perilous links had also been drawn between terrorist groups and rogue and unstable regimes.  It was by strengthening and improving existing disarmament and non-proliferation regimes that those new challenges must be addressed.  The United Nations, and particularly the Security Council, must demonstrate more decisiveness and courage in its reaction to “broken” commitments, ill-defined national interests, and the cold war era mentality. 

He said that the NPT remained the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime.  Its further strengthening through its universality and enhancing of the inspection regime must be a priority.  He attached great importance to the IAEA’s safeguards system, including the Additional Protocols, as instrumental parts of that regime.  Both the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions should be further reinforced, on international and national levels, by strengthening transparency, verification, and national compliance mechanisms.  For its part, Georgia had successfully completed the anti-terrorist operation in the Pankisi Gorge and freed it from illegal armed groups and ammunition.  But, unless the root causes of the problem were addressed, there and in the conflict in Chechnya, “we cannot speak of the issue being solved”, he said. 

As the international community continued to seek ways to improve the multilateral arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation regimes by achieving universality and improving verification, “we cannot turn a blind eye” to the related fundamental issue of unresolved conflicts.  Protracted problems, resulting in the creation of uncontrolled territories, had become a breeding ground for illegal arms trafficking, the proliferation of dangerous materials, and terrorism.  Closer ties between the separatists and terrorists were being forged.  Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia were no exception.  Ten years of efforts by the United Nations had yielded no tangible results, while the peace process remained a victim to one particular country, which chose to follow double standards when it came to pursing its stated goals, fulfilling international commitments and facilitating the peace process.

As a result, he said, both the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia, territories nurtured by the Russian Federation, had become terrorist enclaves, with increasingly aggressive militarization.  Huge amounts of armaments, anti-personnel mines and ammunition had accumulated in those territories, and the unprotected borders of those separatist regions with the Russian Federation had turned into a regular route for illegal arms trafficking.  Despite his repeated calls, the problem of the proliferation of small arms in Abkhazia continued unabated, due, in no small part, to the illegal operation there of the Russian military base.  Despite his numerous requests for the expedient and transparent removal of the base, the Russian Federation refused to uphold the commitments taken under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty).  Other unilateral illegal actions by representatives of the Russian side had also significantly damaged the peace process.  In the Abkhaz and Ossetian sections of the Georgian-Russian border, where a visa-free regime had been unilaterally imposed by the Russian Federation, threats of nuclear terrorism also existed.

LUC JOSEPH OKIO (Congo) said a number of delegations before him had expressed serious concern that the disarmament process was proceeding too slowly, the threat of weapons of mass destruction continued to hang over humankind, and the lack of progress in the Conference on Disarmament had been disheartening.  Sharing those concerns, he said disarmament objectives were harder to achieve when challenges, such as terrorism, were continuing to intensify.  In that context, he called for the universalization of international disarmament and non-proliferation treaties.  For its part, his Government had acceded to the NPT.  In that context, he called upon those States that had not yet done so to follow suit.

The holding of the first biennial meeting to work towards eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons had been significant, he noted, especially since civil society was now fully involved in helping fight that scourge.  He also stated that his country had followed with interest and supported the work carried out by France and Switzerland to develop an international tracing mechanism for small arms and light weapons.  After all, in Africa, it was that type of weapon that was wreaking so much havoc on the continent.  In that regard, he called on the Committee to pay greater attention to draft resolutions on that issue.

The potential development of new nuclear weapons was worrying, he said.  He thus urged the nuclear powers to respect the responsibilities that came with their status and destroy their arsenals.  After all, a world free of weapons of mass destruction and indeed all weapons could be had, if countries truly desired it.  On a related note, he lamented that so much money had been wasted on military expenditures when it could have been used to fight HIV/AIDS, promote education, and alleviate poverty.  Turning to his own country, he said it had destroyed all of its mines, which had never even been used in the first place.  It had also held a workshop last May, attended by delegates from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to coordinate action against landmines in that country.  Before concluding, he stated that reinserting ex-combatants into society had allowed for greater peace prospects.  Therefore, he urged his country’s bilateral and multilateral partners to continue supporting such programmes.

Right of Reply

The representative from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea clarified his position regarding the nuclear-weapon-related dispute between the United States and his country.  Specifically, he stated that the nuclear issue was the product of a hostile United States policy to his country.  Thus, reconciliation depended totally on whether the United States was willing to abandon that policy.  He regretted that the United States only continued to repeat unilateral demands for demilitarization.

In addition, he said, it appeared to have the intention of overthrowing his country’s Government.  When the United States labelled his country a member of the axis of evil, his Government had begun to see itself as the potential victim of a pre-emptive strike, as Iraq had been.  Thus, his country was merely acting out of self-defence.  He also urged the Republic of Korea to maintain its spirit of national independence and not cooperate with outside forces against fellow countrymen.

* *** *