IMPACT OF STATE DISPUTES ON ARMS RACE, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AMONG ISSUES ADDRESSED, AS SEVEN MORE DRAFT TEXTS INTRODUCED IN FIRST COMMITTEE

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

First Committee

15^th Meeting (AM)

IMPACT OF STATE DISPUTES ON ARMS RACE, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AMONG ISSUES

ADDRESSED, AS SEVEN MORE DRAFT TEXTS INTRODUCED IN FIRST COMMITTEE

The General Assembly, concerned that continuation of States’ disputes might contribute to the arms race and endanger international peace and security, would urge strict compliance with bilateral, regional and international arms control and disarmament agreements to which the contending States were parties, according to one of seven draft resolutions introduced this morning in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Submitting the new text, the representative of Pakistan said that, while the United Nations had indicated that the maintenance of peace and security at the global and regional levels was the primary responsibility of the international community, in practice, tensions at the regional and subregional levels were a main source of instability.  Consequently, the world had witnessed a spiralling arms race, particularly in regions of tension, which had obstructed the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Another draft, presented today by the representative of Myanmar, would have the Assembly urge the nuclear-weapon States to immediately stop the qualitative improvement, development, production, and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.

Regretting that some countries placed emphasis on the aspect of nuclear non-proliferation, thereby playing down the importance of nuclear disarmament, Myanmar’s representative stressed that such thinking was not helpful, since nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation were substantively linked and mutually reinforcing.

A related text, on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the “Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons”, was presented by the representative of Malaysia, who said the lack of progress in the nuclear disarmament field had been disheartening.  Declaring that the challenges facing the international community in realizing a nuclear-weapon-free world had become more formidable than ever, he insisted that full and unqualified commitment from States was needed to achieve true nuclear disarmament. 

Drafts were also introduced today, by which the Assembly would:  reaffirm that security in the Mediterranean region was closely linked to European, as well as international, peace and security; invite States to accede to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention); call upon all States to take appropriate measures with a view to preventing any dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes that would infringe upon the sovereignty of States; and request the Disarmament Commission to meet from 5 to 23 April 2004.

Drafts were introduced by the representatives of Algeria, Thailand, Nigeria, and Nepal.  Speaking in the thematic debate were the representatives of the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Norway, Paraguay, Kenya, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, Indonesia, Russian Federation, Uruguay (on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)), Australia, France, and India.

The Committee, which today concluded its thematic debate and introduction of drafts, will meet again on Monday, 27 October, at 10 a.m. to begin taking action on all draft texts.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue its thematic debate, today on related matters of disarmament and to hear the introductions of further drafts. 

The topics of the drafts expected to be submitted today were:  nuclear disarmament; security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region; follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; Ottawa Convention; regional and subregional confidence-building measures; dumping of radioactive waste; and the report of the Disarmament Commission. 

Draft Summaries

According to a draft resolution sponsored by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of African States, on the prohibition of dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/58/L.12), the Assembly would express grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States. 

It would also call upon all States to take appropriate measures with a view to preventing any dumping of nuclear or radioactive wastes that would infringe upon the sovereignty of States. 

By a further term, it would appeal to all Member States that had not yet taken the necessary steps to become party to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management to do so as soon as possible. 

Concerned that continuation of disputes among States might contribute to the arms race, endanger international peace and security and the efforts of the international community to promote arms control and disarmament, the Assembly would urge strict compliance with bilateral, regional and international arms control and disarmament agreements to which the contending States were parties, according to a new draft resolution sponsored by Pakistan on confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context (document A/C.1/58/ L.18).

The Assembly would also urge, in the context of confidence-building measures, the maintenance of military balance between States in the regions of tension and conflict in the acquisition, development and deployment of conventional and strategic weapons systems. 

In a related provision, it would call on Member States to refrain from the use or threat of force in dispute settlement.  It would encourage those that had not already done so to open consultations and dialogue in the regions of tension and conflict without preconditions. 

Reaffirming the role of the Disarmament Commission as the specialized, deliberative body with the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery that allowed for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations, the draft text on the report of the Disarmament Commission (document A/C.1/58/L.20), would have the Assembly request the Commission to meet for a period not exceeding three weeks during 2004, namely, from 5 to 23 April. 

It would recommend that the Commission consider the following items at its 2004 session:  [to be determined]; and [to be determined]. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Brazil, Belarus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Guatemala, Italy, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Nepal and Venezuela. 

Convinced that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons posed a threat to all humanity and that their use would have catastrophic consequences for all life on earth, the Assembly would underline, once again, the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there existed an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective control, under a draft resolution on follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.31). 

The Assembly would call, once again, all States immediately to fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination. 

It would ask all States to inform the Secretary-General of the efforts and measures they had taken to implement the present resolution and nuclear disarmament, and asked the Secretary-General to apprise the Assembly of that information at its next session. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Tonga, Viet Nam, Yemen and Zambia. 

A draft resolution sponsored by Algeria on strengthening security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/58/L.42) would have the Assembly reaffirm that security in that region was closely linked to European security, as well as to international peace and security. 

The Assembly would express its satisfaction at the continuing efforts by Mediterranean countries to contribute actively to the elimination of all causes of tension in the region and to the promotion of just and lasting solutions to the persistent problems there through peaceful means, thus ensuring the withdrawal of foreign forces of occupation and respecting the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries of the Mediterranean and the right of peoples to self-determination. 

It, therefore, would call for full adherence to the principles of non-interference, non-intervention, non-use of force, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the relevant resolutions.  It would also call on all States of the region to adhere to all the multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, thus creating the necessary conditions for strengthening peace and cooperation in the region. 

A draft resolution on the implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/58/L.43) would have the Assembly invite all States that had not yet signed the Convention to accede to it, and urge all States that signed, but did not ratify it, to do so without delay. 

The Assembly would also urge all States parties to provide the Secretary-General with complete and timely information to promote transparency and compliance with the Convention. 

By a further term, it would renew its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance mine risk education programmes, the removal of anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world, as well as the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims. 

The Assembly would also invite and encourage all interested States, the United Nations, other relevant international organizations or institutions, regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and relevant non-governmental organizations to participate in the programme of intersessional work established at the first meeting of States parties to the Convention and further developed at subsequent meetings of States parties to the Convention. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan and Jordan. 

Also:  Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 

A draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.47) would have the Assembly urge the nuclear-weapon States to immediately stop the qualitative improvement, development, production, and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems. 

It would also urge them to, as an interim measure, immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear-weapon systems. 

By a further term, it would call on those States to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument imposing policies of no-first use, and upon all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non-use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.  It would also urge nuclear-weapon States to commence plurilateral negotiations among themselves at an appropriate stage on further deep reductions of nuclear weapons. 

By additional terms, the Assembly would call for the full and effective implementation of the 13 steps for nuclear disarmament, contained in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and urge the nuclear-weapon States to carry out further reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives. 

The Assembly would also call for the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.  In that context, it would urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree on a programme of work which includes immediate negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their conclusion within five years. 

By further terms, it would call for the conclusion of an international legal instrument or instruments on adequate security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States, and for the early entry into force and strict observance of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). 

The Assembly would also call for the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament at an early date to identify and deal with concrete measures to attain that goal. 

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,

El Salvador, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Tonga, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 

Statements

ABDULAZIZ NASSER AL-SHAMSI (United Arab Emirates) said nuclear-weapon-free zones represented an important step towards achieving regional peace and security.  Therefore, he called on Israel, the only State in his region to possess nuclear weapons, to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other relevant instruments, and thus allow the Middle East to join other regions of the world in becoming a nuclear-weapon-free zone. 

In that context, he called upon the Committee to condemn Israel’s repeated violations of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.  He also urged the United Nations and major powers to pressure the Israeli Government to dismantle its nuclear arsenals, accede to the NPT, and place all its nuclear facilities under the scope of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, so that universal adherence to the Treaty could be promoted in the Middle East.  Such a move would build confidence and enhance security among the countries of the region.  In addition, he called on all States to refrain from providing scientific and financial assistance to Israel that would help modernize its nuclear arsenal. 

Before concluding, he expressed hope that the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.22) and the text on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/58/L.23), introduced by Egypt yesterday, would receive the Committee’s support. 

WICAKSONO ADJI (Indonesia) said that, in his subregion, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was promoting preventive diplomacy and confidence-building measures, which were enhancing mutual understanding, trust, peace, and stability.  Specifically, such practices as transparency, the elimination of certain weapons, and restraint in arms acquisition, were conquering mistrust and miscommunication.

The Conference on Disarmament, however, was still mired in a deadlock.  In that regard, he expressed hope that the “A-5 proposal”, put forth by five former presidents of the Conference, would help that body overcome its impasse and produce a programme of work that would adequately address the world’s rapidly changing security environment.  He also voiced support for the revitalization of the General Assembly, but stressed that that would require flexibility and cooperation. 

KNUT LANGELAND (Norway), speaking about the draft resolution introduced yesterday on enhancing the Committee’s role in the maintenance of international peace and security (document A/C.1/58/L.15), said it was important to keep up the momentum in that regard.  Enhancing the Committee’s role was part of the larger efforts to improve the functioning of the General Assembly.  Ongoing consultations must contribute to that work, and those two tracks must be mutually supportive.  Having played an active role in the General Assembly’s working group, he felt that a revitalized First Committee would have a positive spin-off effect in efforts aimed at a multilateral approach to disarmament and arms control.  He appreciated the consultations on the draft and he hoped it could be adopted without a vote. 

Y MYA THAN (Myanmar), introducing the draft resolution entitled “nuclear disarmament” (document A/C.1/58/L.47), said that although the draft was not a “Non-Aligned Movement” draft, per se, it reflected the views of the overwhelming majority of the countries of the non-aligned movement.  Nuclear disarmament was the highest priority in the field of arms control and disarmament.  Towards the vision of a world totally free of nuclear weapons, the disarmament community must strive to take incremental steps for reductions of nuclear weapons, eventually leading to their total elimination.  That was reflected in the preambular portion of the draft.

He said that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation were substantively linked and mutually reinforcing.  The two processes must go hand-in-hand.  Let there be no mistake -- it was inconceivable to enforce nuclear non-proliferation effectively without a systematic, progressive and irreversible process of nuclear disarmament.  In other words, a systematic, progressive and irreversible nuclear disarmament process was indispensable to the strengthening and effective enforcement of nuclear non-proliferation.  That point was of paramount importance.  Some countries placed emphasis on the aspect of nuclear non-proliferation, thereby playing down the importance of nuclear disarmament, from which he differed strongly.

He said that under article VI of the NPT, all States parties had the obligation to pursue, in good faith, and to bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, in all its aspects, under strict and effective international control.  The Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference set out 13 steps to achieving nuclear disarmament.

He said that the “unequivocal undertaking” by the nuclear-weapon-States, contained in that document, to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, leading to nuclear disarmament, was also of paramount importance.  The text, therefore, called for the full and effective implementation of those 13 steps by the nuclear-weapon-States, which was of the utmost importance.  The draft sent a powerful message through a number of substantive paragraphs, including reiterating the call on the Conference on Disarmament to establish, on a priority basis, an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament early in 2004.  It also called on the Conference to begin negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament.

The draft was comprehensive in scope and encompassed crucial interim measures for reducing the nuclear danger, as well, he said.  There was a genuine need to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrines and security policies of the Member States, in order to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used, and to facilitate the process of their total elimination.  The nuclear-weapon-States were urged, as an interim measure, to de-alert and deactivate immediately their nuclear weapons, and to take other concrete measures to reduce further their operational status.  The draft was the most substantive on the subject, and it promoted and underlined the importance of multilateralism in that field.  It was indeed a road map for nuclear disarmament, in an in-depth and substantive manner.  For those reasons, he called on Member States to support it.

SAAD MAANDI (Algeria) expressed his views on the draft on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.47), which had been presented by the representative of Myanmar, and which his own delegation had co-sponsored since its inception.  Reiterating that the complete elimination of nuclear weapons must be a top international priority, he said that the end of the cold war had made nuclear security doctrines anachronistic.  Additionally, unilateral efforts to reduce arsenals were a positive step, but not enough.

He expressed concern over the important role of nuclear weapons in international politics and the subsequent interest of States to acquire them.  Such factors were calling into question global commitments made on nuclear disarmament, infringing upon the principle of security for all, and leading to discrimination between nuclear and non-nuclear States.  It was also leading to the development of new types of nuclear weapons, creating mistrust, and accelerating the arms race.

Calling for a relaunching of the work of the Conference on Disarmament, he said it must soon commence negotiations to eliminate the world’s deadly weapons.  He added that nuclear disarmament could not just be confined to combating horizontal nuclear proliferation, when vertical proliferation continued against the spirit and letter of the NPT.  And he stressed that such proliferation could be stopped, if only States would abandon old reflexes and outdated nuclear doctrines.

He told delegates that the draft at hand proposed several measures, such as convening an international nuclear disarmament conference, negotiating a treaty governing fissile material, and concluding a binding instrument that would prevent non-nuclear States from being attacked with, or threatened by, nuclear weapons.  Expressing support for the text, he called on all delegations to support it.  He also backed the draft concerning the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.31), and urged all delegations to support that one as well.

JUAN ALFREDO BUFFA (Paraguay) voiced support for the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.  In that context, he announced that his country had destroyed 2,615 firearms and over 80,000 kilograms of munitions.  His Government had also held a seminar called “New challenges for Paraguay in the fight to control, prevent, combat, and eliminate the illicit trafficking of firearms, munitions, and explosives” to help focus the efforts of judicial, ministerial, military, police, and border officials. 

Expressing appreciation for the United Nations Centre for Peace, Disarmament, and Development for Latin America and the Caribbean, which worked tirelessly to destroy weapons in a transparent manner, he said the United Nations should offer it more assistance.  In addition to arms destruction, the Centre, with added support, could also carry out training programmes for law enforcement officers and judges, and inaugurate a tracking centre for firearms. 

SAAD MAANDI (Algeria), introducing the draft resolution on strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/58/L.42), said the text bore witness to the joint resolve to cooperate, through constructive dialogue, in establishing a genuine partnership and building a stable, peaceful and prosperous Mediterranean region for the benefit of all the peoples there.  That was the fundamental goal, which derived from the many deep ties that had been woven over the centuries.  That relationship was also a strategic policy choice, which responded to the hopes of the people on both shores of the Mediterranean, who sought to turn the Mediterranean into a true “lake of peace and cooperation”.

He said the draft was similar to the one adopted last year and dealt with several issues to strengthen peace, security and cooperation in the region.  It also restated the duty of all States to contribute to regional stability and prosperity.  Among its terms, the text noted that the settlement of disputes in the Middle East would contribute to peace and stability in the Mediterranean region.

SYED HASRIN TENGKU HUSSIN (Malaysia) introduced the draft resolution on follow-up to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.31).  The Advisory Opinion of the Court on 8 July 1996 remained a historic and resolute decision in the field of nuclear disarmament.  It constituted an authoritative legal call to rid the world of nuclear weapons.  The Court’s unanimous conclusion that there existed an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects, under strict and effective control, continued to be replicated in operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution.  Operative paragraph 2 underlined the obligation of all States to successfully conclude those negotiations. 

He said there was clearly “a crisis of confidence” in the area of nuclear disarmament.  Little progress had been achieved over the past year, and large stocks of nuclear weapons remained in the arsenals of the nuclear-weapon States.  Further, there were plans by those States to build new nuclear weapons, as well as plans for their possible use in future military conflicts.  The international community had also witnessed the decision by a State party of the NPT to withdraw from that Treaty.  The lack of progress in the nuclear disarmament field had been disheartening.  The co-sponsors, thus, had felt compelled to reiterate the international commitment to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free world. 

In that connection, he called on Member States to implement the provisions of the draft upon its adoption.  The challenge facing the international community towards the realization of a nuclear-weapon-free world had become more formidable than ever, requiring a full and unqualified commitment to the established goals.  The world had been able to promulgate treaties banning the use, threat and production of other weapons of mass destruction, yet the final goal of elimination of nuclear weapons remained elusive.  The world must not falter; it must work towards the elimination of those weapons with a clear target, which was foreseeable, realistic and attainable, and not one that sought to indefinitely perpetuate the possession of such weapons.

LAXANACHANTORN LAOHAPHAN (Thailand) introduced the draft resolution on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/58/L.43).  She lauded the fact that a number of non-signatory States, as well as several States that had signed, but not ratified, the instrument, had joined the co-sponsor list.  That large number of co-sponsors reflected the high level of agreement with the humanitarian objectives of the Convention, she said.

The draft had been updated to reflect the fifth meeting of States parties to the Convention, held last month in her country.  That meeting had been attended by over 600 representatives from States parties, other States, United Nations agencies, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations.  It had succeeded in highlighting the devastating impact of landmines.  Recalling that, the draft’s preambular paragraphs accented the commitments that were voiced at the meeting -- namely, pledges to clear mines, assist victims, destroy stockpiles, and promote universal adherence to the Convention.  Briefing delegates on the text’s operative paragraphs, which invited States to sign and ratify the Convention, she expressed hope that it would be adopted by the widest possible margin.

MR. OYUGI (Kenya) voiced support for the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/58/L.43), introduced by Thailand.  Noting growing support for the text, he said it reflected the international consensus that landmines directly contributed to human suffering and economic underdevelopment.  In that regard, he urged those countries that produced, transferred, sold, or used such weapons to cease such activities and join the international community in combating them. 

Encouraged by the successful conclusion of the fifth meeting of States parties to the Convention, held last month in Bangkok, he said the meeting had brought together most of the ratifiers, and was an inspiring example of what multilateralism could achieve when collective will was mobilized.  He also lauded the fact that the meeting had not only been attended by mine-affected countries, but by humanitarian organizations, victim assistance groups, non-governmental organizations, and States that wanted to help.

Expressing satisfaction that stockpile destruction deadlines had been met by most countries, he said that, for its part, Kenya had succeeded in destroying its stockpiles two years ahead of its deadline, and would continue to submit reports on any other progress it made in the area.  Also pleased that adequate resources had been allocated to achieve the destruction of mines throughout the world, he said his country would continue the good work by hosting the next meeting of States parties to the Ottawa Convention next year.

ALEXANDER KMENT (Austria) expressed his full support for the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/58/L.43).  He had been pleased at the unprecedented high number of co-sponsors, which was a visible expression, not only of the success of the Convention, but also of the strength of the international norm against anti-personnel mines, which the Convention had established.  Anti-personnel mines could not discriminate between combatants and innocent civilians.  Those weapons caused terrible human suffering.  That had been acknowledged by some 150 States, which had outlawed the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of that terrible weapon.  He strongly urged those that were still outside the Convention to change their position and join the ever-growing consensus.  In that connection, he congratulated Turkey, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro, Sudan and Burundi for their recent ratifications and accessions. 

He said that the Convention was not only a disarmament instrument, but also provided the framework for the solution of problems caused by anti-personnel mines.  States parties had committed themselves to clearing mined land, assisting victims and destroying stockpiles.  During the past four year, impressive progress had been made towards the implementation of those objectives.  Vast areas of mined land had been cleared and returned to civilians for productive use, survivors of landmine accidents had been assisted, and many millions of stockpiled mines had been destroyed.  Nevertheless, anti-personnel mines continued to be used and continued to cause human suffering and impede post-conflict development. 

A lot, therefore, still needed to be done to truly solve that problem, he continued.  In addition to further strides towards universalizing that Treaty, more resources should be mobilized to ensure that its objectives were achieved.  The fifth meeting of States parties had been a success.  Now, it was important to begin preparations for the review conference, whose success would be measured in the renewed commitment to solving the problem of anti-personnel mines.  That could be done, if work continued in the same spirit of partnership that had so far characterized the Ottawa process. 

MERETE LUNDEMO (Norway) said that anti-personnel mines threatened humanity and impeded development.  She congratulated the representative of Thailand on a successful and well-organized meeting on the Ottawa Convention last month, at which preparations were begun for the first review conference, to be held in Nairobi next year.  There, all States parties should renew their political and financial commitments to the Convention.  The Conference should engage all stakeholders and mine affected and all humanitarian and development actors.  Norway had taken a lead through the establishment of a resource mobilization group.  As in previous years, it had co-sponsored the draft on the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/58/L.43).

UMER SHAUKAT (Pakistan) introduced a new draft resolution on confidence-building measures in the regional and subregional context (document A/C.1/58/L.18).  That new initiative had been submitted to address multiple factors affecting peace and security.  While the United Nations had indicated that the maintenance of peace and security at the global and regional levels was the primary responsibility of the international community, in practice, tensions at the regional and subregional levels were a main source of instability.  Those tensions contributed to the arms race, endangering not only international peace and security, but also undermining efforts aimed at arms control and disarmament.  Consequently, the world had witnessed a spiralling arms race, particularly in regions of tension and instability, which had obstructed the peaceful settlement of disputes, rendering their resolution more difficult.

He cited, as another reason for tabling the text, the availability of an overwhelming body of evidence, which clearly established that initiation of confidence-building in tension-filled regions had paid tangible dividends for peace.  By lowering tensions through those measures and the peaceful resolution of disputes, States could devote energies and resources to development.  The regional arms race was the bane of development.  Acquisition of military arsenals beyond legitimate security needs had been a prime cause of economic debilitation.  A symbiotic link existed between conflict and underdevelopment, and between war and poverty.  That insidious relationship must be broken.

The draft, in operative paragraph 7, asked the Secretary-General to consult with the States of a region to open a process of consultation; not to impose anything, but only to consult with Member States and to ascertain their views about the reasons for the tension in the region, with a view to exploring settlement possibilities.  Promoting consultations among those countries was a Charter responsibility of the Secretary-General.  Indeed, it was the role of a facilitator to strengthen efforts towards confidence-building measures.  So, when that paragraph was read carefully, the number of qualifiers built into the text was very clear.  It had struck a balance between the sovereign will of States, while enabling the Secretary-General, as mandated by the Charter, to continue the quest for peace in all parts of the world.

CHUKA CHIDEBELEZE UDEDIBIA (Nigeria) introduced the draft resolution on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/58/L.12).  Declaring that the least developed countries on his continent had been affected the most by the dumping of such waste, he encouraged the international community to sustain the resolution and, thus, help Africa.  The Council of Ministers of the African Union had already done its part by adopting a similar resolution.

Briefing delegates on the draft’s operative paragraphs, which included a request to the Conference on Disarmament to intensify efforts to conclude a convention on the matter, he said that, aside from a few technical adjustments, the text was identical to previous versions.  Therefore, he hoped it would be adopted without a vote, as it had before.

Mr. HEINSBERG (Germany) addressed the draft on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.5), which had been introduced yesterday by Japan.  Expressing deep disappointment with the current state of affairs in the Conference, he deplored the stalemate and called the body’s inability to address new threats to peace and security, unacceptable and inexcusable.  Declaring that parties that refused to engage in open dialogues on agenda items were not living up to their responsibilities, he said they were to be unequivocally blamed for blocking useful work.  Additionally, Members, who were espousing one-sided approaches, while pointedly refusing to acknowledge other concerns, were behaving in an intolerable manner and preventing multilateralism from being effective.  Therefore, he hoped the draft, which would have the Assembly stress the urgent need to commence work in the Conference, would be taken literally by Member States.

TIM CAUGHLEY (New Zealand) said he strongly supported the biennial Canadian draft on verification, including the role of the United Nations in that field (document A/C.1/58/L.48).  In the current highly unsettled security environment, there was a greater need than ever for effective and robust verification mechanisms.  While there was not yet consensus on the way forward for strengthening them and ensuring full compliance, he, nonetheless, welcomed the debate as an opportunity to explore what was at stake for the international community.

An argument raised against the creation of verification mechanisms was that the rapidly evolving technology meant that it would be impossible for any one mechanism to keep abreast of all threats, he said.  While he accepted the point that threats from chemical and biological weapons were not static and would continue to evolve, that was an argument that cut both ways.  While new threats might be emerging, verification technology was constantly being updated and improved.  Against the advancement of new threats, it was surely preferable to have States working together to support verification mechanisms.  Not all States had the resources to be monitoring compliance issues and, therefore, international institutions that could be constantly focused on that task added a further layer of protection.

Another argument against multilateral mechanisms was that security of States was a sensitive issue, and bringing such issues into multilateral forums could only alert potential proliferators or non-State actors to potential gaps in defence regimes, he continued.  In responding to that argument, the reality that information was now easier to access and exchange should be considered.  In such cases, alerting States to potential problems and ensuring that effective institutions were in place to monitor adverse developments was a constructive and effective avenue for addressing those threats.  Establishing verification institutions could be costly and time-consuming, but when international security was at stake, it was in everyone’s interests to ensure that such bodies were well resourced.

He said he strongly supported the work of the IAEA as an example of an institution upon which all Member States could rely to provide thorough and independent assurances that nuclear materials were being used properly and safely in accordance with international commitments.  He especially appreciated the Agency’s efforts to undertake regular reviews of its procedures.  Any verification mechanism would only be as strong as the will of the international community to support it.  At the same time, verification was not an aim it itself.  Real security against weapons of mass destruction required that all relevant States and individuals enforce, vigorously, the treaties, rules, laws and procedures, which had been established to outlaw proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

ROBIN FRASER (Canada) said that, last year, the Committee adopted a biennial resolution by consensus, entitled “United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education”.  It reaffirmed the role of the United Nations in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation and the commitment of Member States to take concrete steps to strengthen that role.  It welcomed the United Nations study, prepared by the Secretary-General with the assistance of governmental experts, and agreed that the need had never been greater for disarmament and non-proliferation education.  It also recognized the importance of civil society in its promotion.

He said his Government had long recognized the value, indeed the indispensable contribution, of research and education in areas of international security.  The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s “International Security Research and Outreach Program” was a focal point for original research and assessment relevant to international security issues, including non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament, verification and confidence-building measures.  In August, it launched the Graduate Research Awards for Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in partnership with The Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies at the University of British Columbia.  Its primary objective was to enhance Canadian graduate-level scholarship on those issues.

Canada was also finalizing its contribution to an ambitious project, in partnership with the United Nations Association of Canada, namely, the launch of a comprehensive disarmament education programme intended for students and teachers at the secondary-school level across the country.  That project held great promise and went far to capture the spirit of the Secretary-General’s report, along with the desire to establish close collaboration between experts in the field and civil society, including educators and academic institutions at the secondary and tertiary levels.  He looked forward to returning to that important theme at next year’s session.

WICAKSONO ADJI (Indonesia) spoke in support of the draft on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.47), introduced by Myanmar.  Stating that in today’s world, there was an emphasis on nuclear non-proliferation and terrorism, he said more attention had to be drawn to the lack of nuclear disarmament and failure to live up to Treaty’s obligations.  Lamenting the lack of progress in bodies such as the First Committee, Conference on Disarmament, and the Disarmament Commission, he said nuclear-weapon States and those States that had nuclear capabilities constituted a threat to the continued survival of humanity.  That was why his delegation had decided to co-sponsor the draft.

ANTON VASILIEV (Russian Federation), concerned with mounting tension in the Middle East which was harming all parties there, declared that, in order to ensure regional stability, efforts to create a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East should be encouraged.  He added that enacting such a proposal would help Israel become a party to the NPT and thus promote the Treaty’s universalization.  Urging the international community to act more forcefully to ward off worst-case scenarios and further the peace process, he called for the Road Map to be implemented as soon as possible.

SUSANA RIVERO (Uruguay), on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), spoke about the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions.  With regard to the latter, the prohibition of chemical weapons constituted one of the main pillars in the struggle against the proliferation of mass destruction weapons.  The MERCOSUR countries had ratified that instrument and could affirm that their subregion had no weapons of mass destruction of any kind.  At a time when the international community was threatened by terrorism seemingly determined to use any kind of mass destruction weapon, the premise of the Chemical Weapons Convention had particular relevance.  Five years since its entry into force, progress in its implementation had been the result of efforts undertaken by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the States parties to the Convention.

She said it was of the utmost importance to adapt the mechanisms that controlled the transfer of chemical substances and its precursors, and achieve better understanding and cooperation among States towards solving eventual discrepancies in their declarations.  On the other hand, it was necessary for a global compromise to obtain a policy of transparency in the chemical activities developed by States.  That must be reflected both in their declarations and in the course of inspections carried out by the OPCW.  Cooperation should be promoted among customs officials, in order to foster a collective effort centred on control and security and prevention of the use of any prohibited substance.  They should also create rapid response mechanisms, in order to be able to act in the face of the misuse of such substances or a chemical weapons attack.

Concerning the biological materials, he emphasized the importance of harnessing global will for the promotion of economic and social cooperation in the scientific and technological development, both at the bilateral and multilateral levels, and exchanges of information, material and experts.  Also, national measures should be adapted, such as enforcement of a national mechanism of security and the monitoring of pathogenic and toxic micro-organisms.  He hoped for early universalization of the Biological Weapons Convention and transparency among States in the transfer of related technology, without discrimination, for peaceful purposes.  Training programmes on biotechnology, based on development agreements, should be promoted, and an international data bank should be created to facilitate information in the field of genetic biotechnology.

GEOFFREY SHAW (Australia) said he had been particularly pleased at the level of participation of States parties and observers at the Bangkok meeting.  More should be done to address the impact of anti-personnel mines in Asia.  In that context, holding the meeting there had drawn international attention to the significant regional problems.  He welcomed recent progress on universalizing the Convention, and noted that it now had 140 States parties.  He urged all States that had not yet done so, particularly in Asia and the Pacific, to accede to the Convention.  He was pleased, once again, to co-sponsor the draft.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said the draft on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/58/L.5) would probably be adopted without a vote, as in the past.  That was a good thing, since the draft introduced by Japan was more substantive than previous versions.  Extolling the virtues of multilateralism, he said that, in order for it to flourish, the Conference on Disarmament had to survive and continue its work.  After all, the expertise it had was unique, and it was the only forum where Member States could negotiate on a truly equal footing.

Declaring that States should not just sit back and accept the Conference’s paralysis, he reminded delegates that the body had done great things in the past and should, therefore, not just fade into the horizon.  Nevertheless, he suggested that the Conference, without abandoning its traditional priorities, should address security matters that were relevant to today’s world, such as weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, verification, and the assessment of new types of weapons.

Mr. OYUGI (Kenya) spoke in support of the draft on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (document A/C.1/58/L.1).  Such weapons represented a true scourge, since they victimized women, children, the infirm, and the elderly.  Additionally, the illegal trafficking of such armaments negatively affected countries’ economies and living standards.  Because of the tremendous effects of small arms and light weapons on his subregion, his country had brought together 10 regional States to draft the Nairobi Declaration, a plan that mirrored the United Nations programme of action to combat the illicit trade in such weapons.  Steps in the Declaration included establishing national focal points to help implement the programme of action, forming national steering committees to manage development and disarmament, and reforming security sectors.

He told delegates that, as a country that had suffered greatly from an influx of small arms and light weapons, Kenya had destroyed over 8000 such armaments.  It had also actively participated in the first biennial meeting to consider the implementation of the Programme of Action, held last July.  Nevertheless, greater international cooperation was needed, especially since illicit trafficking was fomented by loopholes in differing national policies.  He also called for more international assistance to regional and subregional initiatives.  That aid would help update surveillance mechanisms and reinsert ex-combatants back into society, among other things.  Voicing support for the Franco-Swiss initiative on tracing and marking, he also said he backed the draft on the prohibition of radioactive dumping (document A/C.1/58/L.12), introduced by Nigeria, and he urged all delegations to support it.

NARAYAN DEV PANT (Nepal), on behalf of the 2003 Chair of the Disarmament Commission, the expanded Bureau, and all co-sponsors, introduced the draft resolution on the report of the Disarmament Commission (document A/C.1/58/L.20).  The draft had been the result of open-ended, informal consultation among members of the Commission.  It was similar to previous drafts, with appropriate changes to the text, as well-known circumstances had warranted. 

He said that the Commission had concluded its consideration, in 2003, of two items:  ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament; and practical confidence-building measures in conventional arms.  Accordingly, operative paragraph five of the text reflected the fact that the specific items for consideration at the 2004 substantive session were still open, and would be decided at the forthcoming organizational session, or following additional consultations, if necessary.  The present draft, in operative paragraph six, reaffirmed the practice of holding a three-week substantive session. 

It was not an easy task to maintain a balance between differing interests at the core of security concerns, he said.  It was vital for the Commission to reach consensus on those important issues.  During three years of deliberations, it had met the challenges and presented papers, which would serve as basis for further deliberations.  He was grateful to all for their constructive spirit and cooperation, but, of course, he was disappointed that it had not been possible to overcome the few remaining obstacles towards successfully concluding that body’s work.  He hoped those issues would “stay alive” and that delegations would put the papers to good use.  He was optimistic about the Commission’s future work in 2004 and beyond, despite its inability to agree on consensus documents in 2003. 

Mr. VENKATESH VARMA (India) joined other delegations that had spoken about the importance of disarmament and non-proliferation education.  That was an extremely important task, in which non-governmental organizations, activists and academics played an important part.  Education brought together all of the broad strains of activities.  The Committee would return to that theme next year to build on the substantive recommendations included in the recent United Nations study.  He joined other delegations in seeking to keep the focus on that important activity.

* *** *