RELUCTANCE TO BE BOUND BY GLOBAL AGREEMENTS ‘PARTICULARLY DISTURBING’, AT TIME WHEN WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY MORE ACCESSIBLE, FIRST COMMITTEE TOLD
| |||
| Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York |
Sixtieth General Assembly
First Committee
14th Meeting (AM)
RELUCTANCE TO BE BOUND BY GLOBAL AGREEMENTS ‘PARTICULARLY DISTURBING’,
AT TIME WHEN WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY MORE ACCESSIBLE, FIRST COMMITTEE TOLD
Also Hears Introduction of 16 Draft Texts; Confidence-Building
Measures, Middle East Nuclear Proliferation, Among Issues Addressed
At a time when weapons and their technologies were more accessible and security problems more interconnected worldwide, the reluctance to be bound by global agreements and unwillingness to enter into new agreements was particularly disturbing, the First Committee was told today, as it held a thematic debate on disarmament machinery and heard the introduction of 16 draft texts.
When diplomats failed with substance, they placed the blame on the machinery and its procedures, Sweden’s representative told delegates. But the world must not fall into that trap. The main difficulty was not the machinery itself –- “it is us”.
Describing the lack of progress in disarmament bodies and in major multilateral treaties, such as the Conference on Disarmament and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), she said the consensus rules deserved examination, particularly when procedural rules were used to prevent substantive discussions. Three out of four weeks of the NPT Review Conference had been blocked that way and for eight years the Conference had been similarly stymied. The consensus requirement on substance was a different matter. The right to say “no” was absolutely essential when national security matters were at stake, not the least for small nations outside defence alliances. There should be a “give and take” approach, rather than a “my way or no way” solution. But, business as usual, meaning no business at all, was not an option.
New Zealand’s representative said that the consensus rule was being misused to prevent even the initiation of informal discussions on the crucial disarmament and non-proliferation objectives. She completely supported the need for the consensus rule during substantive negotiations on matters of national security, but she was frustrated by its misuse on procedural issues. Against last year’s disappointing background, concrete proposals were needed to “break the CD logjam”. Her aim was to “see the CD back in business, real business”, and she sought assurances towards that goal from those who continued to frustrate efforts to settle on a work programme, and who failed to put forward viable, alternative proposal. She had been extremely patient, but that patience was wearing thin.
Canada would not resign itself to a dysfunctional Conference on Disarmament, its speaker said. As a vital mechanism for advancing the disarmament agenda, the Conference’s failure to adopt a work programme had not only inhibited the global community from advancing collective efforts to respond to serious threats to global peace, but had contributed to the current crisis in confidence in the multilateral, non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control arena. Like the Disarmament Commission, the Conference was blocked by differences of national priorities that, unresolved, made it impossible to agree on a work programme.
He said that the Conference’s work programme would require action on a fissile material cut-off treaty, nuclear disarmament, prevention of an Outer Space arms race, and negative security assurances. The Disarmament Commission could take up the file of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, by taking stock of what had been achieved and what remained to be done in realizing the goals set by the first such special session in 1978, as well as considering how those goals might be revised. The First Committee enabled States that were not members of the Conference or other restricted bodies to give democratic expression to the world’s expectations for disarmament and security.
Also today, draft resolutions and decisions were introduced on: confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms; the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East; establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East; the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament; the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace; environmental norms in the drafting of disarmament agreements; and erosion of multilateralism in the field of arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament.
Also: the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament; United Nations Regional Centres; relationship between disarmament and development; review of the declaration on strengthening international security; preventing the risk of radiological terrorism; regional disarmament; conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels; Conference on Disarmament; and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Introductions of drafts and statements in the thematic debate were also made by the representatives of Argentina; Egypt, on behalf of the Arab Group; India; Indonesia on behalf on the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM); France; Pakistan; Netherlands; China; Poland; Italy; Norway; Mexico; Pakistan; and Peru.
A representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 19 October, to continue its thematic debate and to hear the further introduction of draft texts.
Background
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to begin its thematic debate on disarmament machinery and to continue hearing the introduction of draft resolutions on a range of issues.
GABRIELA MARTINIC ( Argentina) introduced a draft resolution on Information on confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms. The initiative in submitting this resolution dovetailed with efforts to resume dialogue. Dialogue on that issue did occur at the 2001, 2002 and 2003 disarmament meetings. Dialogue had also occurred this year. Argentina deemed it necessary for its initiative to be consolidated and in the near future, it would take up the possible bi-annualization of that resolution.
On behalf of the Arab Group, KHALED SHAMAA ( Egypt) introduced the draft resolution entitled “risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East” (document A/C.1/60/L.6). He said the draft reflected the concern of countries in the region, and of the international community, regarding the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and the danger of the presence of nuclear facilities not under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards system. That concern had been expressed in various reviews of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The draft confirmed the need for all concerned States to take specific and serious measures to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, as well as the need for all States to join the NPT and to comply with its provisions. The draft called on Israel, as the only State in the region outside the NPT, to join the Treaty and to put its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.
He also introduced the draft text on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/C.1/60/L.3). Egypt would continue to submit that draft, as it had for the past 20 years, calling for the necessary measures to eliminate nuclear weapons in the Middle East, as well as for countries to submit all nuclear facilities to the general IAEA safeguards system. The text called on all parties in the region, pending the zone’s establishment, to refrain from developing nuclear weapons or conducting nuclear-weapon tests, or to allow the production of those weapons on their territories. He hoped for the draft’s consensual support.
JAYANT PRASAD ( India) introduced the draft resolution on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/60/L). The resolution was first brought before the First Committee in 1989. Continued advances in information technology, advanced materials, biotechnology and space applications since then offered promising opportunities for the social and economic development of all countries. The Chemical Weapons Convention provided an example of a multilaterally negotiated, non-discriminatory and legal mechanism that addressed proliferation concerns about transfers, without impeding the economic interests of the States parties.
He recognized the “dual use” character of many of the advances in science and technology. The potential for both civilian and military applications was a legitimate cause of concern. However, discriminatory regimes denied access to those crucial technologies to the developing countries, even for peaceful purposes. The co-sponsors had consistently maintained that multilaterally negotiated and non-discriminatory agreements would be the best way to address proliferation concerns. There was a continuing need, now more than ever before, to agree on an effective and transparent system of export control over technologies and materials while ensuring access to those technologies for peaceful purposes.
REZLAN JENIE ( Indonesia), on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said it was urgent to achieve the political will to advance the cause of disarmament and non-proliferation. He introduced a draft resolution on implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace (document A/C.1/60/L.19). Since 1991 the world had undergone major changes. A number of initiatives had been taken to bring about socio-economic development of the countries concerned. In that context, there was still ample room for developed nations to realize the objective of the 1971 declaration.
He introduced a second resolution on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control (not yet issued). The sustainability of the global environment was an issue of the utmost importance, he said. The world should endeavour to ensure that necessary measures were taken to preserve and protect the environment.
A third draft resolution was introduced on the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation (not yet issued). He said multilateralism and multilaterally agreed solutions were the only sustainable way of addressing disarmament and international security issues. It was critical for the General Assembly to adopt such a resolution, to reflect the continued resolution in area of disarmament and non-proliferation.
He also introduced a decision on convening the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (A/C.1/60/L.17).
A fourth draft resolution on the relationship between disarmament and development (not yet issued) stressed that the symbiotic relationship between disarmament and development could not be denied. He said the Movement was concerned that, with increasing global military expenditures little would be spent on poverty eradication. It reiterated the importance of exercising restraint in military expenditures. In that connection, the Non-Aligned Movement welcomed the group of governmental experts’ report on the relationship on disarmament and development.
A fifth draft resolution was on the review and implementation of the concluding document of the twelfth session of the General Assembly: United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament (A/C.1/60/L.18). He said the centres promoted understanding among states in respective regions and the Movement continued to appeal to all Member States, as well as international, governmental and non-governmental organizations, to make contributions to them.
And a second draft decision introduced on the review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security, (A/C.1/60/L.13) emphasized the need for the United Nations to exert continuous efforts for international peace and security.
FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU ( France) tabled a new text on radiological terrorism (document A/C.1/60/L.39). Radiological terrorism was the threat that terrorists might divert radiological materials used in civilian industry or medicine, in order to build what were known as “dirty bombs”. Those were not really weapons of mass destruction, but “weapons of mass disruption”. He was stressing the issue because the threat of radiological terrorism was real. Criminal organizations had already acquired radio isotopes. In 1998, a terrorist attempt had been made to use a ‘dirty bomb’, but that had been foiled. The consequences of its use would be huge. The number of casualties might not be very high, but the people would panic. It would take a lot of time to reassure them and to decontaminate the targeted area. If used in a large city, in the North or in the South, ‘dirty bombs’ would allow terrorists to severely disrupt economic activity.
Furthermore, he said, the ‘dirty bomb’ was an easy bomb. Radio isotopes of all kinds were used in machines, for medicine, oil search, agriculture, and university research. If such machines were not properly secured, it would be easy for terrorists to gain access to those materials. France was active in the field of radiological sources. It was also convinced that such material was useful for both economic and social development. At the same time, that material must be protected from the threat of terrorism and used in increasingly secure conditions. There had been a series of consensual steps in that field, recently. The First Committee could play a useful role by drawing States’ attention to that set of texts and to the measures they proposed, and by encouraging States to consider them. He wished to contribute to Nigeria’s submission of a text on the dumping of nuclear waste and to India’s draft on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, with the submission of the present draft text.
Right of Reply
RI JANG GON (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the United States’ delegate yesterday made a provocative remark against his country, with respect to non-compliance. That statement was a vivid example of the selectivity and double standards of the United States regarding nuclear issues. The statement was a fabrication and the product of the hostile policy of the United States aimed at stifling the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The United States spoke of his country’s non-compliance, when in fact it was engaged only in peaceful nuclear activities.
He would put some questions to the Committee: Who first made and used nuclear bombs? Who still continued to keep large numbers of nuclear arsenals, and to even spread them outside its territory? The answer was crystal clear -– the United States. That country talked loudly about the non-proliferation and verification of selected countries, when its real objective was to dictate to others with its nuclear-weapon monopoly. It was none other than the United States that had systematically pushed his country to acquire nuclear deterrence.
Further, he said that the statement of six-party talks had clearly mentioned the obligation of the United States to resolve the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. He urged the United States to make the strategic and political decision to give up its hostile policy against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and implement its obligations, in that regard.
MASOOD KHAN ( Pakistan) said the disarmament machinery was eminently suited to deal with the matters of disarmament and international security. Political divisions were blocking forward movement on key issues. Current difficulties stemmed from relations between Member States, their priorities, linkages between different issues and the prevalent security issues of States. The World Summit could not agree on any disarmament language, thus signalling a lack of consensus. The United Nations General Assembly and the First Committee were political bodies representing sovereign States. If there was no direction at the strategic level, the bodies dealing with disarmament and non-proliferation were bound to suffer from varying degrees of inaction. When there was a serious deadlock at the political level, active delegations would start wondering if there was something wrong with the procedures or methods of work.
He said First Committee chains were taking initiatives to rationalize the agenda and resolutions. Reform of the Committee or streamlining of the agenda or resolutions must be based on a cogent, clearly stated mission statement. The change should be substantive, not cosmetic. The question of the merger of resolutions or changing freestanding resolutions into omnibus resolutions should be left to the sponsors. If they did so voluntarily, that would be good. Otherwise, they should be encouraged to make their resolutions sharper. Rationalization of the agenda should not be used to remove subjects of vital importance, because a set of countries did not want to address them. If the recommendations in resolutions presented year after year were not heeded, ways should be found to implement them -- not remove them from the floor.
It was increasingly difficult to justify a prolonged period of inactivity in the Conference on Disarmament, he said. The Conference delegations did not act as a nucleus for other disarmament related activities, but in the Conference itself, nothing much was happening. Despite that failure, it was important to ensure continuity of the sole negotiating forum on disarmament. The existing machinery included treaty bodies, some of which were working fine. But, if the international community wanted to work towards a new consensus to achieve disarmament and non-proliferation, or to revalidate the existing agreements, the machinery could deliver, provided States choose to use it. A new security consensus should take into account the need to address existing and emerging challenges to international and regional security.
JOHANNES LANDMAN ( Netherlands) said that the present fundamental crisis in disarmament had manifested itself across the broad spectrum of the disarmament machinery. No programme of work had been agreed in the Conference on Disarmament or in the Disarmament Commission. The NPT review had not produced a final document and, most embarrassingly, the World Summit Outcome had not contained any language whatsoever on disarmament and non-proliferation. Most would agree that it was not a flaw in the disarmament machinery itself that was at the origin of the “coma-like” situation in disarmament. It was also not the much quoted lack of political will. The virtual convergence on the subject in the general debate spoke for itself. The initiative of six States to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work was a clear reflection of a profound malaise. Rather than blaming the machinery, disarmament work had been hampered by an inability to come to a joint security analysis.
He said that the courageous initiative by Brazil, Canada, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand and Sweden had been a wake-up call. For the Conference on Disarmament, which was entering its ninth year of a stalemate on a simple work programme, next year would be “a most unwelcome jubilee of sorts”, if it did not succeed in having at least a meaningful and structured debate on the core issues at hand. He really hoped that the incoming Polish Conference President, together with the five successive ones, would enable the international community to emerge from the present situation.
HU XIAODI ( China) said the multilateral arms control and disarmament process continued to find itself in a stalemate. The Conference on Disarmament had failed to conduct any substantive work for almost a decade. The Disarmament Commission had yet to agree on an agenda for two years. The NPT review ended without substantive result. No consensus had been reached on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation language in the Summit Outcome. Many countries were wondering what was wrong with the traditional multilateral arms control and disarmament process. During last year’s First Committee meeting, there was a lively discussion on improving the working methods of the Committee and many brave ideas were put forth.
He said, for decades, important treaties and conventions had constituted the international legal framework of multilateral arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. Multilateral organs closely related to those treaties had played important roles. What needed to be emphasized was that, due to the authority and broad representation of those traditional mechanisms, the related multilateral efforts conducted through those mechanisms had never failed to receive the most extensive support from the international community. Some countries had advocated that the international community and the relevant mechanisms needed to keep pace with the times, to handle new issues and respond to new challenges. Other countries had stressed that since the agenda and objectives set forth by the first special session on disarmament are yet to be fulfilled, they were not out of date and required continued efforts. Both arguments were credible, and they should complementary, rather than reflect different angles of reality.
It was important, he said, to promote a fair and sound development of the international cause of arms control. The international community should follow the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and other universally recognized norms governing international relations. The right of all countries to equal participation in international arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation should be guaranteed. It was also of vital importance to give full play to the role of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. Political will was the precondition for diplomatic efforts. There was no exception for multilateral diplomacy, which should be inclusive. Major reforms on traditional multilateral arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation needed to be realized through convocation of a new special session on disarmament. Only such a session, and its preparation process, could provide Member States with opportunities to fully and substantially air their views on all the related issues on reforms and reach new consensus on adjustment and multilateral mechanisms. It did not matter if consensus could not be reached among all parties. The international discussion, by itself, was a process that could create conditions for consensus.
ELISABETH BORSIIN BONNIER ( Sweden) said that the rule of law was a fundamental principle in domestic affairs. The fact that some citizens might break the law did not make the law less important. The same went for disarmament affairs. Its machinery had played a vital role in producing vital pieces of international law, and had created mechanisms for monitoring that treaties and norms were being upheld. But, the lacuna remained, both on the legal and implementation sides. The disarmament machinery should be mobilized to fill those gaps. It was disturbing to sometimes see a reluctance to be bound by international norms and agreements, freely entered into, and unwillingness to enter into new binding agreements. That was particularly disturbing at a time when globalization made weapons and weapons technologies more accessible, and security problems more and more interconnected globally.
She said that rejecting the use of the disarmament machinery to develop the necessary rules and norms and to strengthen verification and compliance carried significant risks for global security. Focused and concerted efforts were needed to operationalize and implement existing commitments. The key words were compliance, implementation and verification. The world needed to feel confident that treaties and agreements were not discarded. The recently concluded NPT review was a case in point. Year after year, the United Nations General Assembly passed resolutions that were not implemented. Also, year after year, key disarmament issues were put on the Conference on Disarmament work programme that were not adopted. So, the international community must ask what could be done to hold States accountable for non-implementation and for the present inertia in the disarmament machinery. Representatives of civil society also had a role to play.
Some said that the disarmament agenda was outdated, that new issues should be included, she noted. Perceptions, threats and challenges evidently changed over time and would continue to do so, but the emergence of new dangers did not alleviate the burden of dealing with the old ones, and addressing the old ones was no reason not to face up to the new ones. The present debate of “old versus new” threats was a false debate, and the effect had largely been that neither was dealt with. Instead of fruitless debates where some agenda priorities were pitched against others, “we should open our minds and the agenda to all global security concerns, be they old or be they new”, she said. When diplomats and bureaucrats failed with substance, blame was put on the machinery and its procedures. The world must not fall into that trap. The main difficulty was not the machinery, itself, but it was “us”.
She said she believed that there was a need to reassess the way the disarmament community did its work -- not as a substitute for substance, but because some of the working modes from the cold war period had become counter-productive. How consensus rules were being applied should also be reflected upon. Was it reasonable that procedural vetoes could be systematically and routinely put into play to prevent substantive discussions from beginning? Three out of the four weeks of the NPT Review Conference were blocked in that way, and for eight years, the Conference on Disarmament had been similarly stymied. The consensus requirement on substance, once negotiations were under way, was quite another matter. The right to say “no” was absolutely legitimate and essential when national security matters were at stake, not the least for small nations outside defence alliances.
Much could be done to improve the disarmament machinery, but to get out of the present stalemate and meet the security challenges in an “era of galloping globalization” required an approach to the common multilateral system with an attitude of cooperation and compromises, of ‘give-and-take’ rather than confrontations based on “all or nothing”, “my way or no way”, she said. Business as usual, meaning no business at all, was simply not an option.
PAUL MEYER ( Canada) said the United Nations disarmament machinery was failing and in need of an overhaul. That was highlighted by the absence in the Summit Outcome of any reference to non-proliferation and disarmament matters. Two key multilateral disarmament bodies, the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission were not functioning as intended. The First Committee was also less effective than it should be. Effective multilateralism should be practised by United Nations organs associated with disarmament matters. The Conference on Disarmament was a vital mechanism for advancing the multilateral disarmament agenda. The Conference’s failure to adopt a programme of work had not only inhibited the international community from advancing collective efforts to respond to serious threats to global peace, but had contributed to the current crisis in confidence in the multilateral, non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control arena.
He said, like the Disarmament Commission, the Conference on Disarmament was blocked by differences of national priorities that, unresolved, made it impossible to agree on a comprehensive programme of work. It was evident that an adoption of work programme would require action on four issues; the fissile material cut-off treaty, nuclear disarmament, the prevention of the arms race in Outer Space and negative security assurances. He was concerned about the negative implications of the conference deadlock in agreeing on a programme of work. Canada would not resign itself to a dysfunctional conference.
The Disarmament Commission, he said, had shown the potential to formulate consensus principles, guidelines and recommendations on a large number of subjects. When that deliberative body was able to work, its treatment of various problems in the field of disarmament could help multilateral efforts towards enhanced cooperation and more effective action. But the potential value of the body had been lost, in recent years, because its members had been unwilling to reach agreement on an agenda. He wondered if the Commission could not take up the file of special session on disarmament, where a decade long debate had failed to produce a common stance. In order to facilitate an eventual agreement on the convening of this fourth special session, it would be useful for the Commission to do a stocktaking of what had been achieved and what remained to be done in realizing the goals set out by the first special session and where the goals might be revised.
He said the First Committee enabled States who were not members of the Conference on Disarmament or other restricted bodies to voice their views about the international security agenda. The Committee continued to give democratic expression to the hopes and expectations of the United Nations membership, in so far as disarmament and international security were concerned.
ZDZISLAW RAPACKI ( Poland) said his country had a very keen interest in the effective functioning of the United Nations disarmament machinery, which presently found itself in a difficult situation. The inability of the Disarmament Commission to adopt its agenda and the lack of a work programme in the Conference on Disarmament were clear examples. Failure of the NPT Review Conference to agree on a final document, and the omission in September of any reference to disarmament and non-proliferation in the World Summit’s Outcome further exacerbated the worrisome picture. Those negative developments within the machinery did not contribute to resolving the complex challenges in non-proliferation and disarmament. Efforts should not be abandoned to increase the machinery’s effectiveness and to bring certain bodies back to work on substantive issues.
He said it was for that reason that the Polish Foreign Minister had proposed that the Secretary-General establish a “group of sages” to evolve a comprehensive way to break the stalemate in such important bodies as the Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament. Effectively functioning disarmament machinery was needed. On 1 January 2006, Poland would assume the role of President of the Conference on Disarmament. Together with the other Presidents -- Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal and Slovakia –- his country had engaged in discussions on how to advance the Conference’s work throughout 2006. Establishment of a common platform of cooperation between the session’s presidents could bring participants closer to the long-awaited progress on substantive issues.
As was widely recognized, the problems in the Conference were political in nature, and could be overcome only by political decisions emanating from capitals, he said. Efforts should concentrate on discussing substantive issues, as only such discussion could bring participants closer to understanding which topics were ripe for negotiations. He looked forward to the cooperation of all Conference members in finding ways to get back to work.
DEBORAH PANCKHURST ( New Zealand) said that the consensus rule was being misused to prevent even the initiation of informal discussions on the crucial issues of disarmament and non-proliferation objectives. She completely supported the need for the consensus rule during substantive negotiations on matters of national security. She was frustrated, however, by its misuse on procedural issues, which prevented the initiation of such work. Against last year’s disappointing background, concrete proposals were needed to “break the CD logjam”. Brazil, Canada, Kenya, Mexico, Sweden and New Zealand had put forth one such proposal for initial consideration by Member States at this year’s First Committee, but after discussion with delegations, they had agreed that it would be best not to table the proposal formally at this year’s meeting. They would give more time for delegations to consider the ideas, and to allow space and time for the incoming Conference on Disarmament presidents to develop their plans. Nevertheless, she had been extremely heartened at the level of interest in it.
She said her aim was to “see the CD back in business, real business”, and she sought assurances towards that goal from those who continued to frustrate efforts to settle a work programme, and who failed to put forward viable, alternative proposals. She had been extremely patient, but that patience was wearing thin. The First Committee was an ideal forum in which to discuss possible solutions to the Conference’s deadlock. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of States had referred to their frustration over the untenable stagnation in the Conference in their general debate statements. Substantive negotiations on disarmament and arms control were in everyone’s interests. If that was not possible in the Conference at present, then alternative ways should be found to facilitate such discussions.
CARLO TREZZA ( Italy) said that the first concern was to ensure compliance with the consensual resolution 59/95 of 2004. As a European Union member, and as the Union’s former President two years ago when the revitalization process was initiated, he recalled the role played by the Union and noted that many of its proposals had been reflected in that General Assembly resolution. The First Committee was the main functioning multilateral forum on disarmament and proliferation issues, and safeguarding it, therefore, was of paramount importance. Discussion of the disarmament machinery, however, exceeded the scope of improving the First Committee’s effectiveness. The existing disarmament machinery should be reviewed, but the international community had not received any specific mandate in that regard from world leaders at the September Summit. The Outcome Document had contained several recommendations to overhaul several United Nations structures, but there were no recommendations on the disarmament machinery.
He said that the current stalemate was a symptom of a “political divergence on the main priorities”. Multilateral compromise at this stage required further efforts aimed at harmonizing those priorities. In the Conference on Disarmament, the task of finding agreement on a work programme belonged to the members of the Conference, themselves, and that progress depended on the political will of member countries. The Group of Eight countries last July had called for a resumption of substantive work in the Conference, in a political message of the highest level. The Conference’s importance had also been reaffirmed in the final document of the ministerial conference of the Non-Aligned Movement of countries. Both statements had been meaningful expressions of a political will, which should be built upon. Changing or adjusting the existing machinery, and more drastic calls for suspending some activities, should be approached with caution. Paralysis should not risk the loss of expertise and relationships in the disarmament field, which had been established over many years. Should the stalemates persist, however, he would not oppose analysis of the machinery’s functioning, but, in the end, that might not require new procedures.
RACHMIANTO ANDY ( Indonesia) said the situation surrounding the disarmament machinery was depressing. The last NPT review failed to agree on substantive recommendations and the Conference on Disarmament remained deadlocked without a programme of work for almost nine years. The stalemate in the Conference had affected the disarmament machinery, including the Disarmament Commission, mainly because of the rule of consensus. There was a need to initiate a multi-forum work on disarmament. The international community needed to be more open-minded and constructive, particularly to the disarmament machinery. A sceptical approach would not help. Indonesia supported any initiative to start the Conference on Disarmament working, including the one by Mexico.
There were some issues with the fourth special session on disarmament, he said. For quite some time, an overwhelming majority of States had supported a General Assembly resolution on it. Since that time, a number of conferences on global concern had been convened and prepared the way for multilateral solutions, but disarmament had yet to find its place in the process. A final document on the first special session had clearly stated that nuclear disarmament was one of the international community’s highest priorities. Some time ago, the United Nations Secretary-General had warned States that nuclear threats to international security had accelerated the need for efforts to reach over different key issues on the disarmament agenda. The convening of the special session was the only viable alternative for collective efforts.
KNUT LANGELAND ( Norway) stressed that further steps to revitalize the Committee were important to the disarmament agenda. Some progress had already been made to improve the Committee’s working methods: the general debate had been more focused this year; the thematic debates had been more interactive and interesting; and the new small arms draft resolution had clearly benefited from an open exchange, rather than closed consultations. In addition, the experts’ views had deepened the Committee’s exchanges. Also welcome was the participation of non-governmental organizations. Challenges still remained, however, and the Committee still had to take action on 60 draft texts, of which some were still repetitive, despite efforts to the contrary. While there had been some progress in the Committee’s functioning, the disarmament community was still struggling with other parts of its machinery. It was time, therefore, to set a new course in multilateral disarmament diplomacy, and to forge a new consensus.
He said it was possible for countries from various regions and different perspectives in arms control to set aside their differences and find common ground in responding to the most profound security challenges, namely proliferation and the possible use of mass destruction weapons. A multilateral response was required to counter that threat, and it was imperative to redouble efforts to get the Conference on Disarmament back to work. Commencement of work in Geneva would be a tremendous contribution to efforts to consolidate and strengthen the NPT. The Disarmament Commission remained a great disappointment. He saluted the constructive efforts of the outgoing Chairman, but it was time to ask whether the Commission served its purposes as the disarmament deliberative body of the General Assembly. For several years, the Commission had been unable to produce any agreed recommendations. If that continued, it would lose credibility. Alternative ways should be considered of conducting its business.
FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU ( France) said together with its European Union partners, France was concerned by difficulties the institutional machinery was going through in the realm of non-proliferation and disarmament, from the NPT review, to the Conference on Disarmament deadlock, to the Disarmament Commission and the inability of the Summit to reach agreement on any substantive language. For more than two years, France had tried to stimulate work in the Conference on Disarmament to expand its scope of activity and allow it to rise to meet the challenges. It would be good for the Conference to tackle not just traditional subjects, but to also to try to respond and to meet today’s challenges, the kinds that had more recently emerged.
He said he had sought to preserve the principle of consensus. The new approach should try to identify new issues and come up with new ways of doing work. Certain delegations have referred to the abuse of the principle of consensus. There was not so much abuse, as inadequate and weak use of it. France thought that approach would be able to meet the frustrations voiced by New Zealand. The world shouldn’t be pessimistic, but realistic. Realism says that for two years States had made some small progress -- small but real. The resolution adopted two years ago reflected progress. This year, the international community had succeeded in making further strides.
This time, States had managed to get down to discussion in a plenary format in a more focused way, he said. But, they had also discussed the principal subject of interest, and new issues as well. France had lent its backing to a future chairman and in particular, to Poland, which would be taking over the difficult task to move things along in the Conference on Disarmament. States needed to move forward in such as way as to not harm the interests of the international community.
LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA ( Mexico) said that several common denominators had emerged this morning. The first had been agreement that the situation was bad -- bad for the disarmament machinery as a whole. Not a single speaker had defended it. So, if the machinery was not working, the disarmament community had to ask why. Was that an institutional problem, or one of political will, or was the machinery itself being used poorly? The real problem with the machinery lay in its poor use, and not in the machinery itself. Common ground should be reached through quite a strong dose of convergence. There were realms of action for the Chairman, which had not been fully exploited. Inertia and inefficiency continued to prevail. The status quo was not as it should be, and a margin of action was left untapped within the existing machinery, for which the Committee had a great responsibility. It should come up with proposals to break the inertia.
He drew attention not just to those issues already mentioned, such as the lack of progress in the NPT review and the Conference on Disarmament agenda, or the very shameful conclusion of the lead-up to the World Summit, but also to shaky consensus on tracing and marking, and the failure to reach agreement in the expert group on information technologies. The Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters was not being fully used or living up to its requirements, and the preparatory process leading to the fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament was “limping forward” with great difficulty, and attempts to convene a conference on the peril of nuclear weapons had not achieved consensus. It might be a good idea to hold information consultations on the way forward in the First Committee, to enable it to come to the aid of other forums.
The starting point had been the initiative proposed by six countries, including Mexico, to try to deal with the issues and bring them before the Committee, he said. Ways and means must be found to discuss the merits and demerits of any initiative. He was tired of having the views of the minority imposed on all, owing to the need for consensus. The vast majority was entitled to be heard and to move forward on issues of fundamental importance. The Committee could make that possible. It should evolve a series of subjects on which there was a degree of consensus, leading to the building of a joint vision.
FELIX CALDERON, ( Peru) said disarmament machinery was either rusty, or it was not working well. A number of representatives had applied a pessimistic assessment of the situation and, naturally, that diagnosis was itself cause for concern, because the idea that the disarmament machinery was deadlocked was an unexpected development. Rather, it was the outgrowth of a fundamental change in the international situation. When the NPT was opened for signature, five powers were specifically enshrined or addressed in it. Now, there was a very different situation. Over the interval, there had been a change in the situation that had a regional impact in the realm of biological weapons. In the fall of 2001, after the assault on the World Trade Centre had been condemned, the dissemination of anthrax occurred.
He said the arms race, far from being halted, was moving forward at a paradoxically growing pace. In the case of nuclear weapons, there was no monitoring or control in the sense of transparency applied to fissionable material used for producing those weapons. Beyond that, there were extremely dangerous threats linking terrorists to the proliferation of radiological and other types of weapons. There could be no satisfaction in disarmament paralysis for anybody. It was hoped that next year, results would be achieved, so far as beginning negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament. The arms race continued to be a scourge and indolence was not an option. Peru repeatedly made commitments in favour of peace; it did so by signing all treaties related to arms and disarmament. Now it was time for the international community to get down to establishing specific agenda items in the Conference on Disarmament. That would be a positive signal to the international community.
MASOOD KHAN ( Pakistan) introduced the draft resolution entitled “Conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels” (document A/C.1/60/L.44), on behalf of Bangladesh, Germany, Italy, Liberia, Nepal, Peru, Spain and Ukraine. The draft sought to promote disarmament endeavours in the area of conventional disarmament at the regional and subregional levels. Though evidently important, the issue had not received the attention and support it deserved. A sharp focus was needed on conventional balance and arms control. The operative part of the text, while deciding to give urgent consideration to the issue, requested the Conference on Disarmament to consider formulating principles that could serve as the framework for regional agreements. It also asked the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States and to submit a report to the next session of the General Assembly. He looked forward to the Committee’s strong support of the draft resolution.
FELIX CALDERON ( Peru) introduced a draft resolution on the review of the implementation of the recommendations and decisions adopted by the General Assembly at its tenth special session: Report of the Conference on Disarmament.
The draft would build on resolutions adopted in past years and highlight the work done by the Conference on Disarmament in 2005, in particular, recognizing the importance that it had, and its role as the only multilateral disarmament forum. The resolution further, in its operative portion, embodied an indication of how to move forward in 2006 with disarmament. In introducing the draft, he underscored the determination of the chairmanship to pursue consultations with the incoming president with a view to come up with the ways and means to rally the backing of members, so that the multilateral forum could get down to work without any delay.
GABRIELA MARTINIC, ( Argentina) introduced a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries would like to place on record its satisfaction with the Lima Centre, she said. The draft reflected the recognition of the regional centre and encouraged it to go on working. She hoped that the rest of the international community would go on supporting the Centre, so it could help bring about the objectives of peace, disarmament and development.
* *** *
For information media • not an official record