PRESS CONFERENCE BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

PRESS CONFERENCE BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

At a Headquarters press conference today, Jarmo Sareva, Deputy Permanent Representative of Finland and Chairman of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), briefed correspondents on the Committee’s work for the General Assembly’s fifty-eighth session.

He said the Committee was very much “disarmament driven” and related international security items remained in the background.  The Committee functioned well, by way of its schedule and the running of its annual session.  It was also a voting Committee.  Last year, it had adopted 54 resolutions and two decisions, he said, roughly half of which had been adopted without a vote.

The Committee had started its work on Monday, he continued, with a general debate on all disarmament and related international security agenda items.  The general debate would run for one to two weeks, and would be followed by thematic sessions, where delegations could discuss the Committee’s agenda in a more in-depth manner, and also introduce the related draft resolutions.  That phase would last for another week, he said, and would be followed by action of all draft resolutions left on the table.

There had been no major surprises so far in the debate, he said.  The one common theme prevalent in most delegation’s statements, however, was that of multilateralism.  That came as no surprise, as there seemed to be a widely felt concern about the future of multilateralism, especially in the context of disarmament, arms control, and non-proliferation.  Many speakers had painted the picture in rather bleak terms and had noted the major setbacks and lack of forward steps, in terms of the major multilateral disarmament and arms control regimes.  There had been some minor steps forward, however, in terms of more Member States joining multilateral arms control regimes, and he hoped that trend would be reinforced.

Asked by a correspondent if he could refer to more specific action that would be taking place within the First Committee, he replied that Member States were currently in the process of submitting draft resolutions and some of the issues alluded to included Iran and North Korea.  There was often criticism voiced against the General Assembly -- that it was a mere “talk shop” -- but perhaps this was what the world needed, a place where each and every Member State could wear its heart on its sleeve.  He could not say at the current stage, however, whether some of the headline issues, such as North Korea and Iran, would be reflected in the action that the Committee would take.

Responding to a question about the proliferation of small arms, he said that the issue was very much on the agenda of Member States, and that would be reflected in the Committee’s resolutions.  There was also a general consensus that small arms had been the real weapons of mass destruction over the past decades.

A correspondent highlighted criticisms that had been made of the First Committee, including the fact that it was closed to outside influences, such as OXFAM and Amnesty International.  He replied that Finland had consistently advocated closer ties between the United Nations and civil society, and it was not alone in doing so.  There was a growing understanding that civil society must and did play and important role, and many delegates in the Committee had close links to civil society actors.  There was also a general consensus within the Committee, and indeed the General Assembly, that its work should become more rational, more transparent and, ultimately, more relevant.

Continuing, he recalled an old saying that within the United Nations “serious reform seemed unrealistic, and realistic reform seemed unserious”.  He was not that pessimistic, he said, but reforming the General Assembly was a difficult, complex and slow process.  He was trying to move the Committee forward in that regard, but how much could be accomplished remained to be seen.

Asked if he thought that making the General Assembly decisions binding would make it a more useful tool, he said that such an action was not in the cards in the near future.  Nevertheless, that did not diminish the political value of Assembly resolutions.  When resolutions were supported by a significant number of Member States they did, in fact, carry political weight.

Replying to a query about the possible re-examination of the United Nations Charter under Article 109, he noted that would fall under the domain of the Sixth Committee (Legal), although he had the impression that not much had been taking place in that regard over the past few years.  Amending the Charter would require the consent of all permanent members of the Security Council, which would prove extremely difficult, he said.

* *** *