SPEAKERS ADDRESS PROPOSED CHANGES AIMED AT IMPROVING DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE’S EFFECTIVENESS, AS GENERAL DEBATE CONTINUES

Fifty-ninth General Assembly

First Committee

5^th Meeting (AM)

SPEAKERS ADDRESS PROPOSED CHANGES AIMED AT IMPROVING DISARMAMENT

COMMITTEE’S EFFECTIVENESS, AS GENERAL DEBATE CONTINUES

As the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) continued its general debate this morning, the United States representative told delegates that his Government had proposed measures to reinvigorate the Committee, because only a more effective body could give today’s priority security issues the full consideration that they deserved.

The international community had confronted some of those security issues for decades, but others had emerged only recently, he said.  His country welcomed the valuable recommendations submitted by governments to the Secretary-General on practical ways to improve the effectiveness of the methods of the work of the Committee and had tabled a resolution that would incorporate many of those suggestions.  The interest shown on the resolution it tabled last year, and the adoption of that resolution by consensus, had demonstrated that many United Nations Members States agreed that the Committee needed to change its way of doing business.

He announced that his country had called for the rapid conclusion of a fissile material cut-off treaty, using a new approach.  Negotiation of legally binding treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or nuclear-explosive devices was a goal that the international community had long endorsed as an important step to reduce nuclear dangers.  The United States had concluded, however, that effective international verification of such a treaty was not realistically achievable.  It would be possible to conclude negotiation far faster on a treaty without verification provisions.

The representative of Jamaica agreed that it was time to consider how best to reinvigorate the different parts of the disarmament machinery, including by way of a thorough review of the working methods and a possible change in the manner in which decisions were taken.  Such consideration should, however, be carried out within the context of the fourth special session on disarmament.  While there was some merit in addressing the working methods and procedures of the First Committee in order to improve its effectiveness, the real challenge lay in garnering the requisite political will and commitment to achieve the objectives of the Committee as they pertained to disarmament and non-proliferation.

The representative of Singapore said that, while there had been calls for the reform and revitalization of the First Committee, what was truly needed was greater political will from MemberStates and a stronger spirit of compromise.  While the Committee worked hard every year to pass many resolutions, he wondered if those documents were even implemented, or had produced any tangible results.  To outside observers, it must seem that delegates were merely “going through the motions” year after year, producing pieces of paper that merely reflected positions that were already known.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Morocco, Venezuela, Malaysia, Mongolia, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Cote d’Ivoire, Nicaragua, Sudan, Haiti and Lesotho.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Monday, 11 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 Releases GA/DIS/3271 and 3272.)

Statements

YERZHAN KH. KAZYKHANOV (Kazakhstan) said that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remained one of the most serious challenges to global security.  His country shared those concerns and called for a strengthened and universal application of existing regimes of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  It believed that the current international agreements in the area should be adapted to new realities.  As one of the countries that had voluntarily given up their nuclear weapons, Kazakhstan was concerned by the current status of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).  That important Treaty had been eroded because of destructive action by a number of known States.  The non-proliferation regime faced a formidable threat, and there was a real possibility of an uncontrolled spread of weapons of mass destruction and of terrorists obtaining them.

Kazakhstan welcomed the efforts to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones in all the regions of the world and viewed them as an effective contribution to nuclear non-proliferation, he continued.  His country was actively involved in the negotiations on a treaty establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia.  The initiative by the Central Asian States to establish such a zone should become an important contribution by those States to the efforts to achieve declared objectives.  As the site of the former Semipalatinsk nuclear-testing ground, his country had firsthand knowledge of the horrendous effects of nuclear testing.  It reaffirmed its principled position regarding the total ban of all nuclear testing and called for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).  The governments of all States that had not yet ratified that instrument should display political will and genuine commitment to disarmament.

He added that his country attached great importance to the full implementation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and to the strengthening of its capacity.  The Agency’s verification mechanism provided a guarantee against the diversion of nuclear material from a declared peaceful use to military purposes and illicit nuclear activity. To strengthen those safeguards, all States should sign an Additional Protocol with the IAEA.  His Government remained convinced that it was necessary to launch negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and to establish in the Conference on Disarmament an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament to negotiate a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

ANATOLIY SCHERBA, Head of the Arms Control and Military and Technical Cooperation Directorate, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said that, in light of the growing and unpredictable threat posed by terrorists, he attached great importance to the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  In that regard, he called for existing international treaties in the field of non-proliferation and disarmament to be made more universal and for States parties to strictly comply with their obligations.  He also lauded several developments that had strengthened global non-proliferation efforts, including Libya’s decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programme, the Security Council’s adoption of resolution 1540, and progress made vis-à-vis the Proliferation Security Initiative.

Informing delegates that this year marked the tenth anniversary of Ukraine’s accession to the NPT, he said his country had been working to reduce the number of nuclear weapons it had inherited from the former Soviet Union.  Nevertheless, it still needed to eliminate 5,000 tons of solid propellant from a number of intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Because resources were needed for the destruction process, he appealed to the international community to provide assistance.  Regarding the CTBT, he expressed regret that it still had not entered into force, and urged States that had not yet done so to accede to it.  He also stated that legally binding security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States, from their nuclear-weapon counterparts, would eliminate incentives to pursue nuclear capabilities.

On small arms and light weapons, he said they accounted for over 90 per cent of all casualties in armed conflicts.  That statistic had motivated his country to work towards eliminating 1.5 million such weapons and 133,000 tons of surplus ammunition.  He attached great importance to the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention).  He said his country was currently in the process of completing the necessary preparations for ratification, because it recognized the dangers associated with landmines.  It still, however, required international assistance to destroy its stockpiles, which contained 6 million mines.  Before concluding, he expressed support for reforming the First Committee and streamlining its deliberations.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said that it had been assumed for a long time that the security of a nation State could be assured on a weapon-based system relying on ever-greater technological advances.  Recent times had, however, shown that such impressive arsenals could not deter terrorists or non-State actors who appeared to have the ability to lay their hands on even small arms and light weapons and to construct them into the means of mass destruction.  The recurrence of such tragedies, aimed at  the most militarily powerful of nation States, underlay the need for the international community to reflect deeply on the issues of security and the urgent need to work together to consolidate the international regime using all the branches of the United Nations system, strengthening international legal norms and standards, enabling judicial, security and intelligence cooperation across borders, and addressing issues of root causes, wherever appropriate.

Sri Lanka’s approach to disarmament was founded on its belief in multilateralism, which most particularly served the interest of small States, she continued.  Positive steps, however small, could have an incremental effect.  Sri Lanka had acceded to the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons).  It had also become party to the Amended Protocol II on Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices, Protocol III on Incendiary Weapons, and Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons.  Those measures were a reiteration of the country’s unwavering commitment towards the further promotion of humanitarian law and its continued constructive engagement with the international community on the issue of landmines.  Since the signing of the ceasefire agreement between the Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in February 2002, the Government had embarked on a comprehensive humanitarian mine-action programme with the broad objective of making Sri Lanka a mine-free country by the year 2006.

She added that, while much attention was placed on the dangers of weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation, it was small arms that threatened most people in conflict and war zones today.  Sri Lanka remained closely engaged in the international efforts to combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects adopted at the United Nations Conference in 2001 and follow-up meetings.  The supply of small arms and light weapons should be limited only to governments or duly authorized entities, and arms transfers should be under national, regional and international control in order to prevent their illicit transfer into the hands of terrorists and non-State actors.

COLIN PENG CHONG KOH (Singapore) said terrorism constituted one of the most serious threats to the world.  After all, even after 11 September 2001, the international community had still been forced to endure attacks on Beslan, Bali and Madrid.  Such events showed that the world had not become safer in the past three years, and demonstrated that the violence associated with terrorism respected no boundaries.  He also expressed concern that the threat of terrorism was now being amplified by the risk of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially since a single nuclear attack could cause the “physical end” of his small country.

For its part, Singapore had strengthened its export controls, enacted legislation designed to combat terrorism, and cooperated with several multilateral forums that were working to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  However, it was not only concerned about the world’s most powerful weapons, he said.  Rather, his country also recognized the need to address small arms and light weapons, which fuelled regional conflicts and helped produce failed States with destroyed economies, which, in turn, led to regional destabilization, extremism, and ultimately terrorism.

Noting that every year the First Committee worked hard to pass many resolutions, he questioned what, if anything, those documents really achieved. Wondering if they were ever even implemented or had produced any tangible results, he said that, to outside observers, it must seem that delegates were merely “going through the motions” year after year, producing pieces of paper that merely reflected positions that were already known.  He acknowledged that there had been calls for the reform and revitalization of the Committee.  However, what was truly needed was greater political will from MemberStates and a stronger spirit of compromise.

LOTFI BOUCHRAARA (Morocco) said that 2004 was a year of missed opportunities.  Despite of the lack of consensus in the Conference on Disarmament and the failure of the Disarmament Commission to agree on its agenda, there had been some other progress, including the successful launch of negotiations on the marking and tracing of small arms and light weapons.  Morocco believed that those negotiations should be continued.

The risk of nuclear, biological and chemical terrorism could not be underestimated, he continued.  The international community must address that risk.  It was, therefore, important that the NPT be strengthened, as that Treaty continued to be the cornerstone of a disarmament and non-proliferation regime.  In the Middle East, the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zone had continued to encounter opposition.  Nuclear-weapon States needed to fully respect their commitments under the relevant treaties and conventions.  His Government had signed an Additional Protocol with the IAEA.  That action was a sign of the country’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.  His Government supported the start of negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty.

IMERIA NUÑEZ DE ODREMAN (Venezuela) said she supported multilateralism in the field of disarmament and international security.  She also attached great importance to:  complete nuclear disarmament; the prohibition and destruction of all weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons; eradication of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons; the elimination of landmines; and the prevention of weapons deployments in outer space.  Because disarmament was inherently linked to human rights and the promotion of social and economic development, her county had consistently promoted it in its region.

Focusing on the Americas, she told delegates that her country had joined the Andean Zone of Peace in July 2004.  It had also installed antennae that were compatible with the networks of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) and the IAEA in 2003.  Regarding chemical weapons, Venezuela had coordinated inter-institutional meetings to promote cooperation with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) over the past year.

On small arms and light weapons, she expressed concern about the increase in their illegal flow. After all, they had also become “weapons of mass destruction”. For its part, Venezuela had eliminated 63,326 illegally obtained small arms and light weapons between March 2003 and July 2004.  It had also suspended the import of firearms.  As for landmines, her country had destroyed the 47,189 that had been held by the national armed forces.  Only 1,000 had been retained for training purposes.  Before concluding, she urged States to end the current stagnation seen in the Disarmament Commission and Conference on Disarmament.

RASTAM MOHD ISA (Malaysia) said that it was crucial that favourable conditions be created for the further advancement of the global disarmament process.  All States should strictly abide by provisions of the Charter.  Any action that ignored those provisions and was incompatible with the principles of international law would adversely affect genuine and serious efforts in the field of disarmament.  Malaysia underscored the vital importance of multilateralism and multilaterally agreed solutions in addressing disarmament and international security issues.  As the current Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, Malaysia continued to fully subscribe to the long-principled position of the Movement in the field of disarmament and international security.  The Movement would continue to be at the forefront of the global campaign for the total elimination of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons.

The failure of the Conference on Disarmament to launch its substantive work and that of the Disarmament Commission to agree on an agenda for its session for this year were setbacks to multilateral efforts, he stated.  Those developments were disheartening.  Those two important disarmament bodies should be able to overcome those obstacles and move the process forward.  Disarmament and non-proliferation should be pursued together in a mutually reinforcing manner.  Nuclear-weapon States should fulfil their commitments towards a significant reduction in their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament.  The issue of non-compliance applied both to nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.  The implementation of article VI of the NPT by nuclear-weapon States was crucial.

Malaysia fully supported the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones worldwide, he continued. It would continue to work with Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) colleagues in realizing their aspiration for the acceptance of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region.  It would support the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in other parts of the world, in particular in the Middle East.

BAATAR CHOISUREN (Mongolia) said that, when the cold war ended, the world had high hopes for a new era, one in which the deadliest weapons would be eliminated, thus, sparing future generations from a nuclear apocalypse.  Unfortunately, however, some countries were planning to develop new types of nuclear weapons, while more were retaining the arsenals they already had.  Additionally, the thresholds of use were being lowered, even against non-nuclear-weapon States, and a number of key treaties were being ignored.  Such threats –- coupled with terrorism, organized crime, and proliferation concerns –- made it imperative for the world to work together.

Declaring that nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were mutually reinforcing processes, he stressed that the NPT had to be implemented fully.  Also calling for the CTBT to enter into force and be made universal, he said that unilateral moratoria on nuclear testing did not constitute adequate substitutes for the types of legally binding and verifiable commitments enshrined in the CTBT.  In addition to the NPT and CTBT, international instruments on fissile material and negative security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States were also needed. As a country with an internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free status, Mongolia could do much to contribute to peace and stability in north-east Asia and beyond.

Turning to the Conference on Disarmament, he said the impasse it was facing was “completely unacceptable”, especially since the Disarmament Commission had also reached a stalemate.  Calling on the Conference and Commission to end their “ludicrous situation”, he added that, because of such deadlocks, the First Committee, as the most representative forum on disarmament, was now more important than ever.  However, the body also needed to be reformed and reinvigorated, and there was room to improve its methods of work.

MICHEL KAFANDO (Burkina Faso) said that neither the end of the cold war nor the efforts to regulate the construction of weapons of mass destruction had reduced the military capacities of the world’s powers.  The deployment of even more sophisticated weapons, known as smart weapons, had continued.  The arms race was inspired and promoted by mutual distrust, which was underlay by the pursuit of power and economic interest.

The international community would benefit from strengthening of IAEA safeguards, he continued.  Burkina Faso supported the creation of zones of peace and progress, like the zones created by the Pelindaba Treaty in Africa and others.  The situation with regard to small arms and light weapons was equally disturbing, and the illicit trade in those weapons continued to pose a challenge.  Despite the progress that had been made, the programme of action on small arms and light weapons adopted by the United Nations was still pending.  In that regard, his country welcomed the holding of the fist substantive session on tracing and marking of small arms and light weapons.  That session had attracted the participation of 106 Member States who had demonstrated their interest and commitment.  His country believed that a multilateral instrument on marking and tracing would constitute an important step in reducing the threat posed by the illicit trade.  Issue such as the collection of weapons already in circulation had not yet been resolved.

He expressed the hope that the upcoming meeting in Nairobi in December would make it possible to mobilize the international community with regard to the problem of anti-personnel mines throughout the world.  His country, believing that insecurity went hand in hand with poverty, was prepared to contribute to the work of the First Committee.

ALAA ISSA (Egypt) said rationalizing the work of the Committee was the “issue of the hour”.  However, effectiveness and efficiency should not be the only criteria in evaluating United Nations activities in the field of disarmament and international security.  After all, efforts to establish peace and security, based on international consensus, required hard and continuous work, he said.  In that regard, drafting recommendations on rationalization should not take place until the Committee’s ultimate goal was agreed upon.  He also pointed out that the Committee’s work was now more significant, given the failures of the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission.

Declaring that he would reject any measures that would prevent the Committee from laying out its agenda, he also questioned why delegations were now focusing on the work of the Committee, which had been contributing to talks on disarmament for 59 years, when the Conference on Disarmament had not considered any substantive issues for the past seven.  That was a crucial question, because financial resources were being sent to the Conference, with no results.  He also stressed that all Committee discussions should be completely transparent.

Turning to the NPT, he said the failure of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference should be a warning sign for the international community, since the challenges facing the disarmament and non-proliferation regime were truly dangerous.  He emphasized that States parties to the NPT were neither ready to accept superficial solutions nor prepared to make concessions when it came to the rights bestowed upon them by the Treaty.  Agreeing with the Swedish position that a delicate balance between various NPT obligations was needed, he rejected the notion that non-proliferation-related duties were completely independent from those concerning nuclear disarmament.  He also called for the universality of the NPT, especially in the Middle East.

Regarding missiles, he noted the failure of the group of experts, which had been appointed by the Secretary-General, to produce a report.  That inability revealed the sensitivity surrounding the issue and showed that it was impossible to impose any particular formula without taking into account the security concerns of all States.  On terrorism, he cautiously welcomed Security Council resolution 1540, saying that the required legitimacy for international collective action could only be achieved when all Member States of the United Nations, not just members of the Security Council, stood behind it. In that regard, the resolution’s effectiveness would ultimately be determined by how it was implemented and if that implementation was balanced.

GASTON YAO (Côte d’Ivoire) said that the international community should attach the same level of importance to the threats posed by all weapons, whether they were weapons of mass destruction or conventional weapons.  It should also increase efforts at both disarmament and non-proliferation and, in addition, increase efforts at promoting voluntary initiatives within multilateral frameworks for the universalization of treaties and conventions on non-proliferation and disarmament.

The 600,000 killed each year by conventional weapons during conflicts should make the international community attach the same importance to the threat posed by conventional weapons as it did to weapons of mass destruction, he continued.  Such an impartial interest would solidify the efficiency of the actions resolutely undertaken towards the universalization of relevant treaties and conventions and would enhance United Nations collaboration with regional and subregional organizations.  That dream would, however, not become a reality unless Member States were willing to integrate their national and regional initiatives within multilateralism.  Such multilateralism was the most effective and useful action for contributing to the realization of the objectives of the Millennium Development Goals.  Ensuring balance in the treatment of the threat posed by conventional weapons and that by weapons of mass destruction, universalizing and ensuring entry into force of the effective international judicial instruments on the non-proliferation and general disarmament, and ensuring the triumph of multilateralism would create the proper environment for the First Committee to reassume the role set out for it in the Charter.

MARIO CASTELLON (Nicaragua) told delegates that the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States (OAS) had confirmed that Nicaragua had eliminated 70 per cent of the landmines that had been scattered throughout its territory in the 1980s.  Furthermore, in 2003, broader assistance, through rehabilitation programmes, had been provided to many mine victims.  He added that a national information management system on mines had been established, with international support.  That system comprised a data bank, which helped facilitate aid.  Despite such progress, however, due to poor roads and much rainfall, his country would probably have to extend the deadline for declaring itself “mine-free”.

Turning to other kinds of arms, he said that, by 1993, 102,000 weapons of all types had been recovered in Nicaragua.  Additionally, by May 2004, 22,000 rifles had been destroyed and all stockpiles of landmines had been eliminated.  Between May and June 2004, 666 man-portable air defence systems (MANPADs) from the national army’s inventory had been destroyed unilaterally to bolster the Central American Programme for Arms Control and Limitation, and thus promote inter-State confidence.  Convinced that all States shared the responsibility to eliminate the illicit traffic in firearms, he said they must unite and intensify efforts in that regard.

STEPHEN G. RADEMAKER (United States) said that progress over the past year towards effective multilateralism in the area of arms control and disbarment had been mixed.  His country had been pleased with the enthusiastic reaction to the resolution it introduced on the revitalization of the First Committee.  The interest shown and its adoption by consensus demonstrated that many United Nations Members States agreed that the Committee needed to change its way of doing business.  His country had called for the revitalization of the Committee, not just because it liked efficiency, but because only a more effective Committee could give today’s priority security issues the full consideration that they deserved.  The international community had confronted some of those issues for decades, but others had emerged only recently.

The United States was dismayed by the current state of multilateral arms control machinery, he continued.  This year at the Conference on Disarmament, it had called for the initiation of two negotiations:  the rapid conclusion of a fissile material cut-off treaty, using a new approach, and a ban on the sale or export of persistent landmines.  Ending the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons would enhance global strictures against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  The negotiation of legally binding treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or nuclear-explosive devices was a goal that the international community had long endorsed as an important step to reduce nuclear dangers.  At the same time, the United States had concluded that effective international verification of a fissile material cut-off treaty was not realistically achievable.  One important advantage of negotiating such a treaty without verification provisions was that it would be possible to conclude such a negotiation far faster than would be a case with a treaty that sought to achieve effective verifiability.

He stated that the United States’ proposal on landmines was intended to help end the humanitarian crisis created by persistent landmines.  Because mines could remain active for an indefinite period, they remained dangerous to civilians for many decades after any legitimate need had passed.  The initiative in the Conference would complement the ongoing effort in the context of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to bring anti-personnel landmines under further international controls.

On the NPT, he said that the Review Conference next year was occurring at a time of unprecedented challenge to the Treaty’s non-proliferation goals.  Over the past decade, the international community had witnessed deliberate violations of articles II and III of the Treaty and the announcement of withdrawal.  Events of the past year had underscored the gravity of the threat. The NPT Review Conference must confront those developments as a matter of urgent priority.  All NPT parties should approach the Review Conference as an opportunity to endorse common approaches that would help to ensure the long-term benefits of the NPT.  Measures that promoted the Treaty’s non-proliferation undertakings and remedied existing violations should be supported.  Vigorous efforts to achieve universal acceptance of IAEA Additional Protocol were essential.

He said that his country had dismantled more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988, and that it had withdrawn from active service more than 3,000 tactical nuclear warheads consisting of artillery shells, warheads for short-range missile systems and navy depth bombs.  It had eliminated nearly 90 per cent of its non-strategic nuclear weapons and had eliminated more than 1,000 strategic missiles.

STAFFORD NEIL (Jamaica) expressed concern at the apparent inertia in the disarmament agenda evidenced by the lack of consensus in the Conference on Disarmament in spite of attempts to break the deadlock; the failure of the Disarmament Commission to agree on its agenda; the stalemate in the NPT preparatory process; the continued proliferation of weapons; and non-compliance with or the non-entry into force of key multilateral disarmament treaties.  It was time to consider how best to reinvigorate the different parts of the disarmament machinery, including by way of a thorough review of the working methods and a possible change in the manner in which decisions were taken.  Such consideration should be carried out within the context of the fourth special session on disarmament.  While there was some merit in addressing the working methods and procedures of the First Committee in order to improve its effectiveness, the real challenge lay in garnering the requisite political will and commitment to achieve the objectives of the Committee as they pertained to disarmament and non-proliferation.

He noted that, within the last few years, there had been continued threats to international peace and security.  While Jamaica agreed that the relative newness and impact of certain threats represented dangerous challenges to global security, the international response in dealing with those phenomena should not be at the expense of previously stated multilateral commitments in the areas of disarmament, non-proliferation and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.  There should be a balanced consideration of all threats to international security and any action should not be at variance with the Charter goals and objectives.

While recognizing the sovereign right of States to ensure their self-defence, it was all too clear that there had not been comparable spending in promoting economic development or alleviating poverty.  One year before the five-year review of the Millennium Development Goals, the international community was still far short of achieving the Goals set for itself in the year 2000.  A far more practical approach in addressing security concerns would be to take into consideration important development needs.  In spite of impressive arsenals and sophisticated weaponry, the desperate minds of the dissatisfied and dispossessed could fashion a dangerous weapon out of any object.

ELFATIH MOHAMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said the only way to promote international security was through the enhancement of the multilateral channels dealing with nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.  Noting with regret that a number of big States were enlarging their nuclear arsenals and maintaining deterrence policies, despite international calls for disarmament, he said the relevant international treaties must be implemented.  Unfortunately, in today’s world, the proliferation of wars and conflicts forced some countries to live in a state of “defensive preparedness”, he said.  Funds were often directed to the military, and States were, thus, unable to work towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

Calling on all States to reduce military expenditures, and on nuclear-weapon States to dismantle their nuclear arsenals, he voiced strong support for nuclear-weapon-free zones.  Acknowledging that many countries had already joined such zones and that related conventions already covered around 50 per cent of the planet, he lamented that no such arrangement existed in the Middle East.  That was due to Israel’s rejection of IAEA inspections.  Libya, on the other hand, had engaged in “valiant” efforts to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programme.

He told delegates that last year his country had hosted a meeting of African States parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  That was in keeping with its position that Africa should be turned into a chemical-weapon-free zone.  With respect to small arms and light weapons, he said his country suffered more than most countries from that scourge, especially since they “fanned the flames of tribal wars” in the western part of the country.  Declaring that the spread of such weapons should be combated by the countries that produced them, he insisted that they should never be exported to non-State actors.

BERTRAND FILS-AIME (Haiti) said the international community was no longer living through the cold war.  However, international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction had grown to become the major new threats.  Urging Member States to honour their disarmament commitments and work towards the total elimination of weapons of mass destruction, he said that terrorists -- whose “repugnant” actions had already led to the deaths of Sergio Vieira de Mello, innocent commuters in Madrid, and schoolchildren in Beslan –- should never be allowed to acquire such arms.

Deploring the fact that the CTBT had still not entered into force and that the NPT was still not universal, he reiterated his faith in multilateral cooperation.  In that context, he also criticized the Conference on Disarmament’s failure to adopt a programme of work.  In that body, more political will, flexibility and sensitivity were needed, he said.  Turning to small arms and light weapons, he noted that they were the weapon of choice for regional conflicts.  The international community needed to do everything possible to stop that scourge, which was contributing to instability and had led to the deaths of 4 million individuals, mainly women and children, in the 1990s.

LEBOHANG MOLEKO (Lesotho) said that only through multilateral efforts could the international community win the war against terrorism.  He added that, unless appropriate actions were taken, non-State actors might obtain weapons of mass destruction.  In that regard, he welcomed Security Council resolution 1540.  However, he wondered how long the international community would be able to keep such arms out of terrorists’ hands.  The problem could only be truly solved if nuclear-weapon States eliminated their nuclear arsenals, and non-nuclear-weapon States did not attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.  Only through that compliance with NPT obligations could the world be made safer.

Calling for the entry into force of the CTBT, he also voiced support for negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.  In addition, he expressed disappointment in the lack of progress made in the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission.  Addressing the threats posed by small arms and light weapons, he said that States needed to protect their citizens within their territory from crime and insecurity.  In that context, he hoped that meetings on the tracing and brokering of small arms would be fruitful.

* *** *