Fifty-ninth General Assembly                               

First Committee                                            

4^th Meeting (AM)

Selective interpretation of treaties shaking ‘pillars’

 

OF international security, disarmament committee told

 

Adherence to Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons, Surge in Military Spending Among Other Issues in General Debate

Utter disrespect for and selective interpretation of non-proliferation and disarmament treaties were shaking the pillars of international security, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) was told this morning, as it continued its general debate.

Warning that multilateralism was undergoing a crisis, with disarmament bodies paralyzed and the authority of international instruments seriously at risk, the representative of Algeria emphasized that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were interdependent and inseparable.  Any failure to acknowledge that would send the message that nuclear weapons were useful.

He stressed that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) did not sanction a division of countries into those allowed to have nuclear weapons and those forbidden.  Rather, it maintained that possessing such arms was not an indefinite right, and elimination was a binding legal obligation.  Calling for the NPT to be made universal, he said the world needed a new strategic approach that would herald the end of the current anachronistic nuclear doctrine.

Coming from a country outside the NPT, the speaker from India called for a more inclusive and non-discriminatory international non-proliferation regime. Stating that pursuing non-proliferation without disarmament could be “detrimental and counter-productive”, he cautioned against reinforcing the existing nuclear divide between haves and have-nots.

Declaring that his country shared the world’s growing concern over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he insisted that States were responsible for preventing the spread of such arms, along with their related materials and technologies, to both non-State actors and other States.  That was why India, as a possessor of nuclear weapons, had put in place a system of export controls and maintained an “impeccable” record with regards to preventing proliferation.

Several speakers addressed the issue of military spending.  The representative of Costa Rica, for example, expressed regret that, in a world of finite resources, where States had to establish clear financial priorities, developing countries were spending $22 billion annually on weapons, instead of working to meet the Millennium Development Goals.  That was a matter of concern, especially since one could not achieve security by simply buying more weapons. Declaring that stability would more likely be brought about if injustices were properly addressed, he called for an international, legally binding instrument to limit the arms trade.

The observer for the Holy See echoed Costa Rica’s concerns, saying that lately, a sense of fear had seemed to cloud the vision of the international community, leading to a surge in military spending.  However, security for all was best enhanced when disarmament and development complemented one another, as United Nations studies had shown.  He added that while it could not be said that poverty led directly to terrorism, terrorists exploited conditions of poverty in ways that produced heightened conflict and violence.

The Committee also heard from the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), who said the OPCW was moving decisively from newness into solid maturity, blessed with a verification regime that was considered the “most complex and ambitious in the history of multilateral disarmament”.  Declaring that the Chemical Weapons Convention had been strengthened by the accession of Libya, he denounced other countries in the Middle East and on the KoreanPeninsula that wished to keep their chemical weapon option.  Such countries did not deserve any sympathy, he said, since chemical weapons constituted a “heinous means of terror and destruction”.

Statements in the general debate were also made by the representatives of the Bahamas (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Guyana, Iceland, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Zambia, Kenya, Yemen, Congo and Kuwait.  A representative of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization also spoke.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Friday, 8 October.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue its general debate on the whole range of arms limitation and security arrangements.  (For background, see Press Release GA/DIS/3271 and 3272.)

Statements

PAULETTE BETHEL (Bahamas), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that it was a source of concern that the prevailing climate in the international disarmament and arms control arena did not inspire much confidence that the United Nations Member States were living up to their obligations contained in the Charter to preserve international peace and security.  Little progress had been made in recent times in restoring confidence in critical multilateral treaties, agreement on enhanced verification measures remained elusive, stalemate still prevailed in the Conference on Disarmament and global military expenditures continued to rise.

The CARICOM States welcomed the transparency and frank dialogue that had characterized the discussions on the reform of the work of the First Committee so far and looked forward to continuing discussions on practical and realistic ways to make the work of the Committee, and thus the General Assembly, have greater impact on the global disarmament agenda, she stated.  The Committee should not engage in reform as an end in itself, but rather as a means to make real progress on those issues on the agenda that remained unsolved.

The issue of weapons of mass destruction continued to be in the forefront of the collective concerns of the international community, she continued.  The CARICOM States remained concerned that some of the critical legal instruments governing the multilateral disarmament agenda had recently come under threat or had stalled in implementation.  The CARICOM reaffirmed its commitment to the implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and continued to call for its universality.  It also called on all parties to the NPT to fully implement their obligations under article VI of the Treaty and the commitments made under the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

The CARICOM States were committed to the implementation of conventions governing the development, production and use of chemical and biological weapons.  They welcomed the initiative of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in organizing a regional workshop on the universality and implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to be held in St. Kitts and Nevis in November.  The CARICOM States were also committed to a process of developing and enhancing verification arrangements governing the development, production and use of biological weapons, as a means to promote greater levels of confidence among States.

NADIRA MANGRAY (Guyana) said that, as a small and vulnerable State, her country attached much importance to the system of collective security offered by the United Nations.  However, given the new risks associated with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the Organization needed an “attitudinal shift”, one that could only come about if it moved past the “preliminary and procedural” and embraced a spirit of negotiation.  Noting that it was impossible for today’s unstable world to guarantee that nuclear weapons would never be used, she called for the complete elimination of such arms and maintained that nuclear experiments should only be carried out for peaceful and development-related purposes.

Calling the NPT and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) “too limited”, she expressed concern over the lack of progress with respect to the disarmament agenda.  Turning to international peacekeeping, she said there were more operations than the global community was able or willing to sustain.  In that regard, she suggested more preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-building, as well as a new focus on development, to address the root causes of tension.  Acknowledging that such projects needed funds, she urged donor governments to continue and increase assistance.

Regarding small arms and light weapons, she voiced support for drafting a legally-binding, international instrument to regulate them, especially given the destructive impact associated with their illicit trade.  She also called for global agreement on how the First Committee could be made more collaborative and inclusive and to thus enjoy the confidence and support of all Member States.  Before concluding, she said international concerns would have to adapt to today’s transforming world.  In that regard, “the imperative for change should become irresistible”.

HJALMAR W. HANNESSON (Iceland), expressed support for improving the effectiveness of the methods of work of the First Committee.  His country supported the idea of:  fewer but better studies; fewer, but more focused resolutions that had a realistic chance of follow up; and a system by which the Committee decided what measures were needed, how long they should take and what should be renewed, if necessary, in the light of experience.

The threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and the real possibility that rogue states and terrorist groups could acquire such weapons was an issue of central concern for world security, he continued.  That issue should be addressed effectively by the international community.  As an island State located in the middle of some of the busiest sea lanes of the world, Iceland attached great importance to, and supported, the Proliferation Security Initiative, whose goal was to prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and related materials to and from States, as well as non-state actors.  The NPT was a fundamental pillar of arms control and must be preserved and strengthened.

CARLOS PARANHOS (Brazil) said that, in the current debate, Member States seemed to share concerns about terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, however, they also seemed to share the impression that multilateralism was facing a credibility crisis.  Citing a lack of political commitment, especially from nuclear-weapon States, he stressed that the NPT could be complied with selectively, and that the only guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons lay in their total elimination and the assurance that they would never be produced again.

Noting that his country did not participate in any strategic alliance or security system that depended on the use of nuclear weapons, he told delegates that, long before its accession to the NPT, Brazil had already decided that its national security should not be linked to such arms.  That was why, during the 1980s, its Constitution had expressly prohibited the use of nuclear energy, except for peaceful purposes.  Unfortunately, however, some countries were seeking new rationales for maintaining their nuclear arsenals or developing new types of nuclear weapons. In that context, he emphasized that non-proliferation must be coupled with disarmament.

He acknowledged that a number of States were attempting to avoid “time-consuming diplomatic negotiations” and form their own models of international cooperation, involving fewer countries.  However, such mechanisms could never replace the legitimacy and efficiency of existing multilateral instruments.  Citing the importance of the NPT, he said it could only remain relevant if a balance between its three pillars –- nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, and the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes –- was maintained.

Turning to the Conference on Disarmament, he lamented its “continued paralysis” and maintained that no one was benefiting from the stalemate into which it was currently locked.  He also spoke with regret about the state of the CTBT. Noting that there seemed to be no sense of urgency surrounding its entry into force, he called on all States, particularly those whose ratification was required for the Treaty to enter into force, to accede to it.  After all, although the international monitoring system associated with the instrument was quite advanced, it could not function without the corresponding legal justification.  He also touched upon the close links between disarmament and development, explaining that arms expenditures diverted resources away from social programmes.

MOHAMED AL-MATRAFI (Saudi Arabia) called for support for international regimes on non-proliferation and disarmament and said that it was necessary to avoid selectivity in dealing with issues on the agenda before the First Committee.  Saudi Arabia was concerned about the risk of possession and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  The universality of international conventions on weapons of mass destruction was a common goal, which the international community should seek to attain.

He noted that his country, in reaffirmation of its commitment to international legal regimes, had acceded to the NPT, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention.  Saudi Arabia attached great importance to reinforcement of such instruments at the national level and to the implementation of control regulations.  In that regard, the national authority entrusted with the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention in Saudi Arabia was organizing an event, with a view to reinforcing the role of the Convention within the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The NPT constituted the international framework through which concrete success for the non-proliferation policy could be achieved, he continued.  It was only through dismantling nuclear weapons that that goal could be achieved.  Saudi Arabia stressed the need to reinforce the NPT.  In that regard, the 2005 Conference would be a favorable opportunity to have true dialogue.  Saudi Arabia hoped that the Conference would be a success.  The country attached great importance to resolution 1540 which called on all countries to combat weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

He stated that the dismantling of all nuclear weapons was a goal that the Middle East hoped to achieve.  Israel should submit to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verifications.  There should be no double standards for Israel, which had remained the only country in the Middle East region that has not acceded to relevant treaties on non-proliferation.

MWELWA C. MUSAMBACHIME (Zambia) said that there was need to break the impasse on the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament and the United Nations Disarmament Commission.  Zambia was committed to strengthening multilateralism though continued support to existing multilateral disarmament machinery.  Strong multilateral legal institutions would strengthen non-proliferation efforts.  Zambia continued to subscribe to the NPT regime and considered it the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament.  The country was, however, concerned that recent developments around the world had tended to undermine the NPT regime.  In the 36 years since the NPT was adopted the international community had steadily made progress in nuclear disarmament.  Zambia hoped that, despite the difficulties, the preparations for the 2005 NPT Review Conference would continue to make progress.

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) had lived up to expectations, he stated.  Zambia commended the United Nations Mine Action Service for its leading role in operationalizing that Convention and for maintaining close liaison with State parties.  The sending of a fact-finding mission to Lusaka in July/August was highly appreciated by the Zambian Government. Zambia was also pleased that the First Review Conference of the Ottawa Convention would be held in Africa, a continent that had been heavily affected by landmines.  That was recognition of the continued problem of landmines on the continent.

He added that the increase in the proliferation of small arms and light weapons posed a threat to the survival of States.  Uncontrolled access by non-state actors to those types of weapons led to instability.  It was, therefore, extremely urgent for the international community to implement the Programme of Action that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in July 2001.

BRUNO STAGNO UGARTE (Costa Rica) expressed concern that the NPT had neither an active mechanism for implementation nor an associated permanent administrative body.  Acknowledging that the IAEA could report incidents of non-compliance with nuclear obligations to the Security Council, he criticized the fact that the Council rarely took action in such cases.  He declared that the IAEA should have the power to carry out intrusive inspections.  Unfortunately, however, only 55 States had ratified the necessary additional protocols.  In that context, he voiced concern that States that had not yet signed on were turning their backs on important confidence-building measures.  Addressing nuclear-weapon States, he said he was disappointed by their weak and, in some cases, non-existent commitments to disarm.  After all, any nuclear arsenal was an inherent threat to international peace and security.

Lamenting that the regime monitoring biological weapons had shortcomings as well, since the corresponding convention lacked a verification mechanism, he nevertheless took comfort in the fact that, in 1987, the General Assembly had given the Secretary-General the power to investigate any supposed use of such arms.  Regarding the Chemical Weapons Convention’s lack of universality, he noted with alarm that only 12 per cent of existing arsenals had been destroyed.  Because verification procedures were inseparable from mutual confidence, and given the growing reluctance of States to accept inspections, he urged the international community to promote more binding mechanisms.

On small arms and light weapons, he supported negotiations on an instrument to identify, locate and trace such arms.  He also expressed regret that, in a world of finite resources, where States had to establish clear financial priorities, developing countries were spending $22 billion annually on weapons, instead of working to meet the Millennium Development Goals.  That was a matter of concern, especially since one could not achieve security by buying more weapons.  Instead, injustices must be addressed.  Advocating an international, legally binding instrument, which would establish limits on the arms trade and put an end to the illegal sale of weapons, he also proposed the creation of a United Nations High Commissioner against Terrorism.

FRANKLIN ESIPILA (Kenya) said the current global situation remained “fluid and volatile”, with the threat of terrorism forming a “real and present danger”. Nevertheless, in the Great Lakes and Horn of Africa regions, the easy availability of small arms and light weapons constituted a more immediate threat and made the States there more vulnerable to escalated conflicts.  Because such inter-- and intrastate conflicts often resulted in mass displacement, countries were experiencing a strain on their resources, he added.  It was in that context that he welcomed negotiations on an international instrument to mark and trace such weapons.

For its part, his country had helped bring about the Nairobi Protocol for the Prevention, Control and Reduction of Small Arms and Light Weapons, which was signed in April 2004.  It was the only binding instrument on small arms in the region, he noted.  Kenya would also be hosting the Ottawa Convention’s first review conference, called the Nairobi Summit on a Mine-Free World, from 29 November to 3 December 2004.  The conference would address the problems posed by landmines, which he said were among the “most inhumane of all weapons devised by man”, since they not only maimed and killed innocent civilians, but perpetuated poverty in affected regions.  His country was also tackling the scourge through the Common African Position on Anti-Personnel Landmines, which had been adopted last month in New York and identified priority action areas upon which Africa should focus.

MOHAMED AL-NAJAR (Yemen) said that his country was determined to make every effort to safeguard international peace and security.  It was convinced that the various multilateral instruments were an indispensable framework.  Yemen supported the efforts of the international community in terms of disarmament and had supported the efforts to draft an international instrument in the field of small arms and light weapons.  Those weapons were no less dangerous than nuclear weapons or the possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists.  There was a complex dimension involved in those weapons.  They were the result of colonial history in some countries.

Yemen had taken measures to buy back small arms and light weapons held by citizens its citizens, he announced.  That campaign had used every available media in order to strengthen a culture that did not promote the use of small weapons. The population had also participated actively.  Yemen would like to participate in the first review conference on small arms and light weapons, to be held in Algeria.  Yemen had been among the first countries to ratify the Ottawa Convention.  The demining programme in Yemen had been one of the most successful in the region.  Despite the effort to turn the Middle East into a nuclear-weapon-free zone, Israel still possessed nuclear weapons in violation of international resolutions that called on it to accede to relevant international treaties.  The international community should call on Israel to open to IAEA verifications.

Concluding, he said his Government believed that increasing assistance to developing countries was the best way to guarantee international peace and security, he stated.

ANAND SHARMA (India) called for the strengthening of the General Assembly’s authority.  Addressing the First Committee in particular, he said it provided a forum for Member States, especially those not represented in the Conference on Disarmament, to present their individual security concerns.  Any attempt to limit that opportunity would reduce the Committee’s relevance, he warned.  Additionally, any attempt to change its agenda or alter its priorities could lead to the kind of paralysis currently seen in the Conference on Disarmament.  Declaring that the Conference’s failure to agree on a programme of work reflected current global differences in opinion, he noted that it also showed a lack of political will from “major players” to address such important issues as nuclear disarmament.

Declaring that his country shared the world’s growing concern over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he insisted that States were responsible for preventing the spread of such arms, along with their related materials and technologies, to both non-State actors and other States.  That was why India, as a possessor of nuclear weapons, had put in place a system of export controls and maintained an “impeccable” record with regards to preventing proliferation.  Calling for a more inclusive and non-discriminatory international non-proliferation regime, he emphasized that pursuing non-proliferation without disarmament could be “detrimental and counter-productive”.  He also cautioned against reinforcing the existing nuclear divide between haves and have-nots.

Stating that peaceful uses of nuclear energy could greatly advance economic and social development, he insisted that access to such technology must be ensured.  Nuclear weapons, however, were dangerous, and as long as they existed, the threat of their use, whether intentional or accidental, would always remain.  That was why complete global disarmament, governed by specific time-frames, was needed.  In the meantime, immediate steps to reduce nuclear danger –- such as de-alerting weapons and entering into legally binding commitments on no first use and non-use against non-nuclear-weapon States –- could be taken.

In response to the threat of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, his country would again sponsor a Committee draft resolution on the topic, as it had done for the past two years.  He also called on the international community to strengthen the conventions on biological and chemical weapons.  On small arms and light weapons, he said the illicit trade in them endangered the socio-economic and political stability of States.  He, therefore, hoped for the full implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action on such weapons and commended progress made in negotiations on a marking and tracing instrument.

LUC JOSEPH OKIO (Congo) expressed concern about the lack of progress in the work of the Conference on Disarmament, which was the only multilateral framework for the discussion of disarmament issues.  The goal of disarmament was far from being attained at a time when more and more challenges had appeared.  Joining international instruments on disarmament was vital.  In that regard, multilateral regimes needed to enjoy the full support of all parties.  The 2005 NPT Review Conference must, therefore, be a success in order to ensure the validity of the non-proliferation regime.  The international community must ensure universal membership in the multilateral regime.

He said that the entire structure of disarmament rested on the commitment of the parties.  Lack of commitment by the nuclear powers had been destabilizing. Those countries needed to shoulder their responsibilities and to meet the commitments they undertook at the 2000 Review Conference.  They should carry out the destruction of their nuclear stockpiles.

He appreciated the many initiatives taken at different levels to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.  In Africa, the weapons that killed every day were not biological or chemical weapons, but small arms and light weapons.  The First Committee should attach the greatest importance to the process that was under way on such weapons.  Anti-personnel landmines had also caused so much suffering in Africa.  His Government was, therefore, happy to see that so many countries had become parties to that Ottawa Convention.

To limit the number of threats, Central African countries were trying to organize themselves, he stated.  Congo attached the greatest importance to confidence building measures at the regional and sub regional levels.  In that regard, the country sought to improve relations with all the countries of the Central African region.  For his country, there were no small steps in terms of disarmament.  Every step counted in bringing about security for all.

SAAD MAANDI (Algeria) said multilateralism was undergoing a crisis, with disarmament bodies paralyzed and the authority of treaties seriously at risk.  Selective interpretation and utter disrespect were shaking the pillars of security.  He added that horizontal proliferation was not the only problem and suggested that to say anything else would entail trivializing weapons of mass destruction and ignoring their genuine dangers.  Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were interdependent and inseparable, he maintained, and failing to acknowledge that would send the message that nuclear weapons were useful.

He stressed that the NPT did not allow for a division of countries into those allowed to have nuclear weapons and those forbidden.  In fact, possessing such arms was not an indefinite right, and elimination was a binding legal obligation.  Calling for the NPT to be as universal and non-discriminatory as possible, he said the world needed a new strategic approach that would herald the end of the current anachronistic nuclear doctrine.  Turning to the Conference on Disarmament, he said it needed to be set free from binding limitations so that it could fulfil its mandate.  Currently, it remained hostage to certain narrow national interests and efforts to protect national security interests at the expense of the greater good.

Because nuclear proliferation was not in anyone’s interest, it had to be controlled, especially given the new threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of, and being traded, by terrorists.  That was why his country supported Security Council resolution 1540, which was an example of the Council acting in an “exceptional manner”.  Nevertheless, that resolution was meant to fill gaps in international law, not replace existing treaties.  Turning to his own part of the world, he said Israel should help create a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, the Mediterranean Sea should be converted into a lake of peace and cooperation, and that the Maghreb region should be made stable, homogenous and prosperous.  For its part, his country would be publicly destroying its landmine stockpiles in the coming days.

NABEELA ABDULLA AL-MULLA (Kuwait) said that security and development were interrelated.  It was difficult to make progress in one without the other.  Member States must implement their commitments and work to improve implementation of multilateral regimes.  Kuwait realized the threat posed by nuclear weapons and noted that the necessary progress had not been achieved, because of lack of political will.  In affirmation of its commitment to international peace and security, it had acceded to many conventions and treaties, including the NPT, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and of Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention), the comprehensive safeguards with the IAEA, and the CTBT.

Since it believed in the importance of nuclear security, Kuwait had signed the agreement on notification in case of a nuclear incident, she continued.  All States that had not concluded the necessary safeguards with the IAEA should do so and all parties to the NPT should observe their commitments.  Israel, the only State in the Middle East that had not acceded to the NPT, and the only party that possessed nuclear weapons in the region, should accede immediately to the relevant treaties and become subject to the IAEA regime.  The Israeli nuclear stockpile caused an imbalance in the Middle East.

She added that the time had come to take the crucial decisions necessary in order to implement the resolutions adopted to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction.  States in possession of nuclear weapons should take the necessary steps to prohibit their proliferation.  Member States that had not done so, particularly the 11 whose endorsement was needed for its entry into force, should endorse the CTBT.  Nuclear-weapon States should suspend any nuclear tests until that treaty entered into force.  Kuwait had imposed the necessary regulations to implement the recent resolution on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

She further said that Kuwait supported the efforts at applying and implementing the work plan on small arms and light weapons.  Such weapons had fed and fanned the flames of many conflicts and had stopped development in many developing countries.  Kuwait also supported the efforts aimed at ameliorating the conditions of work in the First Committee and considered it important that such reform effort be transparent and be by consensus.  It should not take place at the expense of content.

ROGELIO PFIRTER, Director-General, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), said that, backed by increasing support from the international community, the OPCW was moving decisively from newness into solid maturity.  To date, it had visited over 750 facilities in over 65 countries, and was close to conducting inspection number 2,000.  Fortunately, the verification regime set out in the Chemical Weapons Convention was considered the “most complex and ambitious in the history of multilateral disarmament”.

Reminding delegates that States Parties to the Convention had adopted two action plans, one on national implementation and the other on universality, he said that, regarding the former, States Parties had decided that by November 2005 they would have to take stock of progress made in developing and enacting the national legislation required by the Convention.  Currently, he felt that many Member States were still lagging behind when it came to implementing and enforcing legislation and customs controls.  In that context, he reminded delegates that the OPCW was ready and willing to provide assistance to any State that requested it, as part of the Organisation’s implementation-support programmes.

With respect to the second action plan, on universality, he reported that the OPCW now comprised 166 Member States and had been strengthened by the accession of Libya, which, last December, had admitted to possessing chemical weapons.  Currently, the Organisation’s inspectors were supervising Libya’s disarmament and evaluating its request for a former weapons production facility to be converted into a pharmaceuticals centre.  Iraq had also expressed a willingness to join the Convention once it had an elected government in power.  Turning to other countries in the Middle East and on the KoreanPeninsula that wished to keep their chemical weapon option, he refused to feel any sympathy with them, saying that such arms constituted a “heinous means of terror and destruction”.

Besides Libya, other countries were making progress as well, he noted.  For example, the United States had destroyed over 30 per cent of its arsenal, and India, which had destroyed 80 per cent of its stockpile, was running ahead of schedule with its disarmament campaign.  Although more needed to be done in the Russian Federation, which possessed the largest arsenal, it was now moving ahead.  Also, Albania, which had recently declared a small arsenal, was currently working with the OPCW to plan a destruction campaign.

CELESTINO MIGLIORE, Observer for the Holy See, said that lately, a sense of fear had seemed to cloud the vision of the international community.  A sign of that fear had been the surge in military spending.  Many States were increasing their spending because they thought that larger arsenals of firepower would provide security.  Increased reliance on guns –- large and small -– was leading the world away from, not towards security.  A clear result of such overspending on the instruments of death had been that governments were much less able to meet long-term commitments to education, health care and housing.  The Millennium Development Goals were left lagging, while military priorities claimed scarce funds.  United Nations studies had shown the integral relationship between disarmament, development and security.  Security for all was enhanced when disbarment and development steps complemented one another.  Development alternatives to militarism should be the constant work of the First Committee.

He added that while it could not be said that poverty led directly to terrorism, it was true that terrorists exploited conditions of poverty in ways that produced heightened conflict and violence.  Terrorists used an array of weapons to kill, maim and slaughter.  Their global reach meant that those weapons were being produced and sold internationally on black markets, as well as by State sponsors.  In conjunction with the Counter-Terrorism Committee, States must look for ways to reduce the easy availability of weapons through increased export controls and added vigilance over weapon stockpiles.

Non-nuclear parties to the NPT had a duty not to engage in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while the nuclear-weapon States had a duty to engage in negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons, he continued.  That was the original bargain of the NPT -- no proliferation in exchange for nuclear disarmament.

ZIPING GU, of the (Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), said that the CTBT was one of the international regimes dedicated to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.  By putting an end to all nuclear explosions, the Treaty constituted an effective measure in the course of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all, its aspects and, therefore, contributed to the enhancement of international peace and security, as well as to the protection of the environment.  The Treaty had been signed by 173 States and ratified by 119, including 33 of the 44 states listed in Annex II of whose ratification was required for it to enter into force.

The main activities of the Preparatory Commission for the CTBTO, established in 1996, and its Technical Secretariat, had been the establishment of the verification regime stipulated by the CTBT and the promotion of understanding and entry into force of the Treaty, he stated.  The global verification regime, which needed to be operational at the Treaty’s entry into force, to monitor compliance with the comprehensive ban on all nuclear explosions, consisted of the International Monitoring System (IMS) and respective means of communication supported by the International Data Centre (IDC); a consultation and clarification process; the right by each state party to request on-site inspection in order to clarify whether a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion had been carried out in violation of the Treaty; and confidence-building measures.

The establishment of the IMS, a worldwide network of 321 seismic radionuclide, hydroacoustic and infrasound monitoring stations and 16 radionuclide laboratories, was progressing steadily, he continued. Although the primary purpose of the CTBT was to ensure an end to nuclear test explosions globally, the CTBT verification technologies had the potential to offer important additional benefits derived from the IMS data and from the activities of the IDC.  Those could contribute significantly to sustainable development and to the betterment of human welfare.

* *** *