Sixty-second General Assembly

First Committee

14^th & 15^th Meetings (AM & PM)

IRRESPONSIBLE WEAPONS TRANSFERS, SOARING DEATH TOLL FROM SMALL ARMS, LIGHT WEAPONS

UNDERSCORE ‘PRESSING NEED’ FOR ARMS TRADE TREATY, DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE TOLD

Seven Draft Resolutions Tabled, among Them, Measures to Prevent Terrorists

From Acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction, Ban on Radioactive Waste Dumping

There was a pressing need for an arms trade treaty, as “every day, and everywhere, people are affected by irresponsible arms transfers”, with small arms and light weapons instrumental in the deaths of half a million people annually, most of them civilians, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today, as it continued its series of thematic debates.

On behalf of the European Union, Portugal’s representative said that the impact of those reckless arms transfers was particularly damaging in developing countries, especially in Africa, where it diverted resources from poverty alleviation and other development work.  Thus, the Union supported the elaboration of a comprehensive, legally binding instrument to establish international standards on the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms.

The Union also called for more resources to be channelled to support the implementation of the 2001 United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, he said.  Full implementation of the International Instrument to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons was also vital.  With brokering controls another high priority, the Union urged fulfilment of the recommendations in the governmental expert group’s report.

Aligning himself with that statement, Finland’s representative also called for further work towards a negotiated agreement at the United Nations on an arms trade treaty, which he described as “one of the core issues at the nexus of development, human rights, and security”.  It was of the utmost importance that the 2008 Biennial Meeting of States on small arms succeeded in advancing the implementation of the Programme of Action and in rebuilding the consensual nature of the small arms process, particularly as concerned peer reviews of implementation, follow-up, and assistance needs of States.

France’s speaker asserted that regional action was not sufficient to curbthe uncontrolled spread of weapons from one continent to another, emphasizing that irresponsible commerce led to countless deaths.  The United Nations Programme of Action dealt only with illicit commerce, and only with one category of weapons, namely, small arms and light weapons, but not with their munitions.  The programme also did not include any true international obligations.  Thus, France believed that the programme could be improved.  Specifically, it was necessary to address not only illicit commerce, but the formal trade of all types of conventional weapons, through a new international instrument. 

Urging that those weapons should be controlled in a systematic way, Nigeria’s representative said that the threat to peace and stability from small arms and light weapons was enormous and represented a danger to mankind.  He felt that the small arms Programme of Action was a key element in promoting long-term security and, as such, sustainable development for the developing world, and Africa in particular.  Flowing from that action programme, various countries and regional groups had developed legal frameworks for combating and tracing those illicitly traded or transferred weapons.  The Economic Community of West African States had demonstrated unflinching commitment to the control of that category of weapons.

Guatemala’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Central American Integration System -- a process entered into by the countries of that region of political, economic, social, cultural and ecological integration -- said that small arms and light weapons caused an excessive number of deaths in Central America.  He called on all States to comply with the provisions contained in Chapter Two of the Programme of Action in relation to the managing of arsenals and the destruction of confiscated small arms and light weapons.  It was important to regulate the acquisition and possession of such weapons within civil society, limiting the type and quantity of arms that could be acquired by civilians.

Also today, the Committee heard the introduction of seven draft resolutions.  The texts dealt with prevention of the acquisition of radioactive material by terrorists; the Convention on Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction; the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction; the Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa; the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty; prohibition of dumping of radioactive wastes; and measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Statements in the thematic debate on other weapons of mass destruction, namely, chemical and biological weapons, were made by the representatives of the Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Norway, France, Australia, Algeria, Morocco, Russian Federation, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, India, Hungary and Poland.

The representative of Switzerland also made a statement in the thematic debate on conventional weapons.

Daniel Prins, Chairman of the Governmental Group of Experts to consider Further Steps to Enhance International Cooperation in Preventing, Combating and Eradicating Illicit Brokering in Small Arms and Light Weapons, made a presentation during an exchange of views with the Committee.

Statements were made during a panel discussion on the tenth anniversary of the opening for signing of the Mine Ban Convention (Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction) by Caroline Millar, President, Seventh Meeting of State Parties to the Mine Ban Convention; Mohammad Haider Reza, Programme Director, Mine Action Centre, Afghanistan; Ian Mansfield, Director of Operations, Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining; and Ken Rutherford, Co-Executive Director, Landmine Survivors Network.

John Barrett, Chairman, United Nations Panel of Government Experts on Verification in All Its Aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification, also addressed the Committee in an exchange of views on disarmament measures and international security.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 October, to continue its thematic debate..

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to conclude its thematic debates and considerations of all draft resolutions.  The thematic discussion on other weapons of mass destruction was expected to conclude, and delegations were expected to begin thematic discussions on disarmament measures and international security, as well as on conventional weapons.

On disarmament measures and international security, an exchange of views would be convened with John Barrett, Chairman, United Nations Panel of Government Experts on Verification in All Its Aspects, including the role of the United Nations in the field of verification.

The Committee also planned an exchange of views with Daniel Prins, Chairman of the Group of Governmental Experts, to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit small arms and light weapons brokering. 

A panel discussion on the tenth anniversary of the opening for signing of the Mine Ban Convention (Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction) would include the following speakers:  Caroline Millar, President, Seventh Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Convention; Mohammad Haider Reza, Programme Director, Mine Action Centre, Afghanistan; Ian Mansfield, Director of Operations, Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining; and Ken Rutherford, Co-Executive Director, Landmine Survivors Network.

Conventional Weapons

DANIEL PRINS, Chairman of the Governmental Group of Experts to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons, said that the Group’s report had defined what was illicit brokering.  That definition included closely associated activities, like transportation and financing, as well as the concept of extra territoriality.  It had also developed optional elements for national legislation.  Those elements -- which States could adopt in drafting legislation -- included definition, registration, record keeping, licensing, related legislation, jurisdiction, penalties and international cooperation.  The list of optional elements was designed to be a practical guide for all States in defining what issues should be covered when trying to come up with national legislation.

Concerning enhancement of international cooperation, he said that the Group recommended operational information exchanges between States, information exchange on control systems, and synergies with the World Customs Organization (WCO) and INTERPOL.  It also recommended cooperation between States, INTERPOL and the United Nations on activities violating United Nations Security Council arms embargoes, as well as assistance in capacity building, and so forth.

On what could be done next, he said that the Group had focused on using existing structures rather than coming up with new ones, however, it felt that their use should be improved.  National measures by States should include formulation of national needs assessments and their integration into action plans, as well as inclusion by States in their programmes of action.  States should include a contact point in their action plans, and it was also advisable that they dedicated specific sections in the programmes to brokering itself; share operation information with INTERPOL; and set up national legislation that could use optional elements in the group’s report.  A regional approach was also encouraged.

At the regional level, regional experts could be brought together to discuss regional information exchange, he went on.  Regional offices of WCO could be included in such efforts, which should also link up with regional INTERPOL conferences.

He added that, at the global level, the clearing house function of the Office of Disarmament Affairs could be developed further.  Also, the organization of United Nations peacekeeping operations could be improved, for instance, by designating dedicated personnel for monitoring arms embargoes.  Evidentiary information from sanctions committees should be forwarded to national authorities when relevant.  There should also be national reporting on brokering and use, although that could only be done effectively if the biennial meeting of States was made more operational.  Small arms and light weapons was a steadily growing problem that could be acted upon and must be acted upon, he stressed.

Panel Discussion on Anti-Personnel Mines

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia), President, Seventh Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Convention, said the Convention was unique, both conceptually and in its concrete effect.  It banned an entire class of weapon and provided a framework for the elimination of such weapons, while containing provisions for victim support.  Montenegro, Indonesia, Kuwait and Iraq were the newest members to the Convention.  Significant progress had also been made in the past ten years, with the destruction of huge numbers of stocks and, in many States, the number of landmine victims had been significantly reduced.  More than $1 billion had been raised under the auspices of the Convention, and a further $1 billion had been raised from States not party to the Convention.  On that note, the Convention had changed the behaviour even of States not party to it, and had “irreversibly stigmatized” anti-personnel mines.

She said, however, that the Convention needed to be universalized.  Australia had been active in promoting adherence in its own Asia Pacific region, and had made a $75 million five year pledge to “innovatively and holistically address the scourge of landmines”, especially in Cambodia and Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

MOHAMMAD HAIDER REZA, Programme Director of the Mine Action Centre in Afghanistan, said that the country had the unfortunate distinction of being one of the most contaminated countries in the world in terms of the presence of landmines and unexploded ordnance.  In Afghanistan, about half of the victims of those weapons were children under 18.  Because of the mines, the people lived in fear while performing such activities as walking to school or tilling the land.  32 of the country’s 34 provinces were impacted by mines or unexploded ordnance, severely impacting the quality of life for Afghans.  Mines and unexploded ordnance hindered the country’s development and stability.

Noting that Afghanistan had become a party to the Mine Ban Treaty in 2003, he said that that Treaty had obligated the country to provide education and victim assistance, and had made it clear that the country’s mine problem could be solved in years, not decades.  The Government and the international community must regard mine action as one of their top priorities.  The Mine Action Centre began as one of the first indigenous mine action efforts, in 1989, and many of its employees had been with programme since the beginning.  It was not just an organization, but a family that extended to the far reaches of Afghanistan. 

The mine clearance personnel, however, had also become targets of the instability that now plagued the country, he said.  Some had become victims of insurgent attacks over the past month.  Several had been abducted and killed in the south of country.  More than 340,000 anti-personnel mines, and 90,000 anti-tank mines had been destroyed in Afghanistan, with the de-miners helping to clear the way for the country’s reconstruction.  The Mine Ban Treaty had helped Afghanistan in the planning and implementation of its mine clearance activities.  Afghans had suffered enough, and the international community should support it in ridding the territory of mines and unexploded ordnance.

IAN MANSFIELD, Director of Operations at the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, spoke about the utility of anti-personnel landmines and their historical use.  In conventional war, those weapons were used to prevent infiltration, and functioned as an early warning of the presence of an enemy.  They were used to protect positions, withdraw routes, and block enemy withdrawal. 

He said that arguments in favour of the use of landmines had always been that they were cheap, effective in frightening the enemy, and flexible to use.  Their low cost had made them available to non-State actors or guerrilla groups, which was where much of the problem lay today.  At the same time, the devices were not as effective as they might first appear, and could be tactically constricting for commanders.  Anti-personnel landmines were also a “double edged weapon”, which had killed many troops as they laid them out, and which could also be stolen by enemy soldiers and reutilized against their opponent.  “The scare factor holds true at the individual soldier level, but most unfortunately, also for civilians, who should not be the intended target,” he said.

Regarding alternatives, he said that there was some justification for anti-tank mines, which were not banned by the Mine Ban Convention.  Enhanced use could also be made of existing natural obstacles, command-detonated weapons, and surveillance devices.  The time had come to stop having the discussion about the military utility of anti-personnel landmines.  “The military will always argue to retain a capability or weapon,” but the changing nature of armed conflict, improvements in other surveillance and detection devices, and the experience of the 155 States parties to the Mine Ban Convention had shown that the time of the anti-personnel landmine had passed.

KEN RUTHERFORD, Co-Executive Director of the Landmine Survivors Network, said that the Mine Ban Treaty had been the first international treaty that had a component for survivor assistance.  Two years ago in Nairobi, the Nairobi Action Plan for victim assistance had been developed.  It was designed for the international community to address the rights of victims of landmines.  It also helped to address the needs of people with disabilities across the world.  It was difficult to describe the pain and agony of what a person went through upon falling victim to a landmine.

He said that the action plan elaborated the assistance that a victim should receive, which included immediate emergency medical care.  Many victims died owing to a loss of blood and the lack of immediate emergency medical care; immediate emergency care made all the difference.  Another component of victim assistance was psychological support, including peer-to-peer support.  The plan also covered components like physical therapy; ongoing medical care; economic integration, including vocational training; and law and public policies.  The Nairobi Action Plan was complemented and supported by actions at the General Assembly and the outcome of the Oslo Conference (February 2007, on cluster munitions).

Statements on Other Weapons of Mass Destruction

HASSAN HAMID HASSAN ( Sudan) said that weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery represented an imminent danger to the survival of humanity, and the most serious challenge to the integrity and credibility of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.  He had in mind the illicit network in nuclear technology and the great risk of access to such weapons by terrorist groups and non-State actors.  The adoption of Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) had been a very important step forward in the fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their delivery means.  However, if the implementation of that important text was to succeed, international, regional and subregional institutions must play their role in assisting developing countries in their implementation efforts.  The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons should move towards a global disarmament process and discourage the new arms race.

He said that the cornerstone of non-proliferation was the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in the Middle East.  The only path to achieving such a goal was through Israel’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and for it to submit all its nuclear capabilities to the comprehensive safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Sudan called on all Members States to ratify the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba), so that it could enter into force without further delay.  Efforts by Member States towards peaceful uses of nuclear energy should not be hindered or compromised.

MARIETA GARCIA JORDAN ( Cuba) said that, together with the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba called on all States to fulfil their obligations on arms control, disarmament, and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in all its aspects.  Cuba was a member of international instruments on the prohibition of weapons of mass extermination, including the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the Conventions on Biological Weapons and Chemical Weapons.

She said Cuba called for the complete, effective, and non-discriminatory implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and for the prohibition and total elimination of all other types of weapons of mass destruction.  Cuba maintained an active role in pushing for the application of that Convention.  She also called on developed countries to promote true international cooperation through the sharing of technology and materials for the peaceful use of chemicals.  The discriminatory restrictions imposed by some States on certain States parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention on the transfer of materials for peaceful use were totally contrary to the letter and the spirit of that instrument.  It was fundamental to guarantee the immediate elimination of all discriminatory restrictions, which complicated the access of Sates parties to chemicals, and cooperation in the effective application of the Convention was vital.

The use of bacteriological agents and toxins should be completely prohibited, she said, adding that Cuba had always worked for the strengthening of the Convention on Biological Weapons through multilateral negotiation of an international verification instrument.  Cuba shared the international community’s concerns about the risk of terrorist groups acquiring weapons of mass destruction.  At the same time, Cuba maintained that that risk could not be eliminated through a “selective focus” limited only to horizontal proliferation, while ignoring vertical proliferation and disarmament.  Several initiatives, among them, the Proliferation Security Initiative, had weakened the role of the United Nations in the fight against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

REZA NAJAFI ( Iran) said no nation had suffered more from chemical weapons than Iran.  His country, as the only victim of the use of chemical weapons in recent history, was familiar with their very destructive effects.  With tens of thousands of victims of the cruel attacks launched by the regime of Saddam Hussein in the course of the war imposed on Iran, his country had been witnessing the sufferings of innocent people while having to shoulder the burden of alleviating their painful plight single-handedly.  That bitter experience had become a determining factor in the national security strategy to renounce all types of weapons of mass destruction and Iran’s unshaken resolve to pursue the realization of a world free of weapons of mass destruction.

He said his country had played a significant role in negotiating the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Following the ratification of that Convention, Iran had successfully implemented its obligations and fully cooperated with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.  Other Member States should demonstrate their accountability in that regard.  To rid the world of the threat of chemical weapons, and to achieve in full the purpose and objective of the Convention, there was the need to ensure its universality.  However, the situation of adherence in the Middle East was not promising.  The notorious possessor of weapons of mass destruction, namely the Israeli regime, by refusing to submit itself to any type of international monitoring, remained the only obstacle to the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the region.  As long as that regime continued to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in its secret facilities, with impunity, there was no prospect for the universality of the Chemical Weapons Convention in that region.

One of the unexplored dimensions of the Convention was the need to bring to justice culprits who supported the use of such weapons, he said.  Credible records indicated that Saddam Hussein’s regime had been assisted by a number of countries in its development of chemical weapons through the provision of materials and precursors.  Those same countries had also supported the regime’s weapons of mass destruction programme financially and through banking systems.  Those countries were responsible for killing and disabling tens of thousands of Iranian victims of chemical weapons.  Measures should be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and to compensate for the harm and casualties incurred as a result of their irresponsible actions.  The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the Chemical Weapons Convention States parties should address that issue seriously and responsibly.

KNUT LANGELAND ( Norway) said that the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions had set fundamental norms on disarmament and non-proliferation in two categories of weapons of mass destruction, and they had greatly contributed to common security.  Norway was highly encouraged by the successful outcome of the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention, which had demonstrated that, when countries focused on common ground, important results could be achieved.  It was crucial for all States parties to put in place and enforce legislation to ensure full compliance with their obligations under that Convention.  His country recognized that countries might need assistance towards that goal, and it had provided funding for regional workshops to facilitate implementation of Security Council 1540 (2004).  The threat of terrorism made it even more important to renew preventive efforts in the field of biosafety and biosecurity.  Norway would devote particular attention to that area, for which it had already allocated resources to assist States parties to the Convention on Biological Weapons. 

At the same time, however, he said his country regretted that the Biological Weapons Convention had not achieved the same level of universalization as the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  He urged countries that had not joined that Convention to do so without delay.  Although the one year commemoration last month of the Chemical Weapons Convention had illustrated the impressive results it had achieved thus far, the international community must refrain from complacency by pursuing its endeavours to further strengthen it.  For example, it was imperative that existing stocks of chemical weapons be destroyed within agreed time limits.  Countries concerned should do their utmost to comply.

JEAN-FRANCOIS DOBELLE ( France) introduced a draft resolution on the prevention of the acquisition of radioactive material by terrorists.  The resolution, like the previous text adopted by consensus, focused on radiological terrorism, given that nuclear terrorism was covered by other texts.  The draft had a triple goal:  to support the action of the IAEA, which played a central role in the field of security for radioactive sources; to achieve the universality of existing international instruments; and to call for the development of bilateral and multilateral cooperation on the safety and security of radioactive sources, in particular, towards a more effective monitoring system.

He said that the resolution also called on Members States to undertake all means within their ability, including tracking, locating and securing radioactive sources, to prevent terrorists from acquiring radioactive materials.  States must combat trafficking within their borders, as well as along their borders.  That particular provision had caused no difficulties during informal consultations. 

The resolution contained a new paragraph to commend the actions of Member States working to seek, locate, and secure non-secure, or “orphan”, sources of radioactive material.  The seventh paragraph had been changed to take into account partnerships existing to guarantee the safety of radioactive sources.  He hoped that, as had happened two years ago, the draft would be adopted without a vote.

Turning to biological and chemical weapons, he aligned himself with the statement made on behalf of the European Union and noted that France had a special interest in chemical weapons, as a country which had suffered from such weapons during the First World War.  Biological weapons had not been used as widely as chemical weapons, but could potentially be even more devastating, and it was necessary to be prepared for any such attacks.  International terrorism served as a reminder of the relevance of that debate.  The measures taken by the international community had varied greatly in their intensity.  In that light, he called for the universalization of the Conventions on Biological and Chemical Weapons (respectively, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological [Biological] and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction; and Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and On Their Destruction).

Ms. MILLAR ( Australia) said that in the past decade, the Chemical Weapons Convention had emerged as a vital cornerstone of the multilateral non-proliferation and disarmament architecture.  Its significance was reflected in its aim:  namely, the total elimination of chemical weapons.  It was regrettable that progress towards that goal was proceeding more slowly than anticipated, and more States continued to remain outside the Convention.  Possessor States should work assiduously to meet the agreed destruction timelines, and States remaining outside the Convention should accede to and implement the treaty without delay.

She said that, in parallel to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention was strengthening global defences against biological weapons and bioterrorism.  Her country welcomed the agreement at the last review on measures to promote the Treaty’s universalization and ensure its full and effective implementation.  Those measures would help to strengthen the Convention’s role in international security and, in turn, assist States in meeting their obligations to counter bioterrorism under United Nations Security Council resolution 1540 (2004).

Under the action plan for the universalization of the Convention agreed to at the last Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference, Australia had undertaken several initiatives, including at the ministerial level, to promote accession to the Convention in the Asia Pacific region.  Effective national implementation had also been a focus of Australia’s promotion of the Convention and its aims in the region.  This year, Australia had provided biosafety and biosecurity training for regional experts, covering such issues as national legislation; the enhanced security of pathogens and toxins; biodefence and surveillance; codes of conduct for scientists; and the role of the Biological Weapons Convention in combating bioterrorism.

LARBI EL HADJ ALI ( Algeria) agreed with previous speakers that the Chemical Weapons Convention had performed extremely well, obtaining almost universal adherence, and serving as a source of encouragement for the international community.  Equally complete frameworks were needed in nuclear and bacteriological areas, and efforts were still needed for the full implementation of all the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention. 

In particular, he said he was concerned that after the 2012 deadline had passed, the instrument would quickly become only a non-proliferation instrument, and that the struggle in that area would be used as a pretext to prevent developing countries from having access to civilian chemical technology. 

Algeria had at all times stated its respect for the principles of that Convention, he said.  It believed that the total elimination of weapons of mass destruction remained a priority, bearing in mind the exceptional threat of that category of weapons, which could strike at peace and security everywhere.  He reaffirmed the importance of complete, non-discriminatory implementation of the Convention in all its provisions, particularly those dealing with cooperation. 

SAMI MARRAKCHI ( Morocco) said that the emergence of the new threat of global terrorism had made broadening the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention and strengthening its national implementation “an even more important and urgent task”.  The Convention should be strengthened through fulfilment of States parties’ obligations to comply with its provisions; finding effective solutions to the various problems hindering the achievement of the goals of the Convention; establishing an assessment mechanism to combat chemical weapons proliferation; and strengthening international cooperation and technical assistance.  He welcomed the implementation support programmes offered by the technical secretariat, as well as the assistance provided by States parties, which might provide an incentive for States not party to the Convention join it.  He also pointed to the importance of horizontal cooperation in strengthening the implementation efforts.

As for Morocco, he said it had been re-elected for the seventh successive time to the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and, for the third time, as a member of the Commission of Confidentiality.  Morocco had submitted to the Secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons its annual statements in accordance with the Convention, and the questionnaire concerning internal procedures for confidential data processing.  It had facilitated the conduction of six inspections of industrial units and, in 2005, had established a national authority to ensure links with the Organization and its member States.  Further, Morocco had submitted proposals for cooperation and assistance to the Organization. 

VICTOR V. VASILIEV ( Russian Federation) said that the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions were among the most important international instruments in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  In the 10 years since the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the instrument had developed into an important mechanism for maintaining international security and stability.  It convincingly had proved its effectiveness in the cause of ridding the world of chemical weapons, as well as developing international cooperation in the field of peaceful application of chemical technologies.  The paramount goal of the Convention today was the elimination of existing stockpiles of chemical agents.  The urgency of that issue was connected with the real danger of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, merging with international terrorism. 

Continuing, he said that the absence of military chemical agents in the world was an effective guarantee against their use for hostile purposes.  The progress achieved by possessor States in that field had been evident.  Especially important was the compliance of possessor States with the timeframes established by the Convention for the destruction of chemical weapons.  His country remained committed to that goal, despite emerging technical, financial and economic difficulties.  The Russian Federation had done everything necessary for its timely fulfilment.  An apt illustration of that had been the destruction of 20 per cent of the Russian chemical weapons stockpiles on time.

The Russian Federation was convinced that the resumption of multilateral work on elaborating a legally binding Biological Weapons Convention verification mechanism would facilitate the effective strengthening of that Convention’s regime, he said.  The most important issue today was to focus on complete fulfilment of the Convention’s provisions and the decisions of its review conferences.  Regrettably, only a small number of States parties had submitted annual declarations on confidence-building measures, as agreed at the Second Review Conference.  Considering that all parties recognized the value of those declarations, the Convention’s depository States –- Russian Federation, the United States and the United Kingdom -– had requested all States parties to submit information on confidence-building measures to the Geneva Branch of the Office for Disarmament Affairs.  Aware of the technical difficulties facing several States parties in the complete and timely preparation of those declarations, the depository States were ready, if requested, to share their experiences on preparing such declarations.

ANDY RACHMIANTO ( Indonesia) said that the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction continued to pose a serious danger to humanity and to peace and security.  While the international community faced slow progress in the disarmament of nuclear weapons, States had made some progress in dealing with other weapons of mass destruction, namely biological and chemical weapons.  He commended the work of the last Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention, and expressed high hopes for the convening of an intersessional meeting and the establishment of the Implementation Support Unit.  Those productive results should further strengthen the Convention.  That treaty could only be reinforced through a multilaterally negotiated, legally binding instrument encompassing all of its aspects, in a balanced and comprehensive manner.

He said that the goal of strengthening that Convention should not hamper the right of each Member State to benefit from the development of biological agents for peaceful purposes.  Further, States parties should foster all forms of international cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of biological agents, including for capacity-building and combating infectious disease.

On chemical weapons, he said chemical weapons destruction should remain the highest priority.  He noted that five out of the six possessors of such weapons had requested and been granted extensions in their destruction deadlines.  So far, only one-third of the overall chemical weapons stockpiles had been destroyed.  The fulfilment of the targets was a mark of the political will of the States parties concerned, and also posed a “direct challenge to the integrity and credibility of this regime”.  He therefore called on the two major possessors to accomplish the destruction process by April 2012.

In keeping with the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Indonesia had submitted its annual declaration for schedule-3 chemicals for the past five years, and had been under on-site inspections by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).  His country was also at the final stage of creating a draft law on national implementation of the Convention.

SAJA SATTAM HABES MAJALI (Jordan) said that her country had ratified all disarmament and non-proliferation conventions.  Within the context of the commemoration of tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Jordan welcomed the fact that Albania had completed the destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile and that Iran had announced its plans to accede to the Convention.  Jordan looked forward to next year’s review conference.  Her country was free of weapons of mass destruction, and was neither exporting nor producing such weapons.  It did not seek to acquire or develop any programmes for such weapons, and it had banned the transit of such weapons through its territory.  All those actions had been guaranteed through legislation.

She said that Jordan had also banned non-State parties from acquiring or trading in such weapons.  Security Council resolution 1540 (2000) had emphasised the need to face the threat of terrorists’ acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.  Jordan welcomed the adoption of that resolution and had submitted the necessary reports on its implementation.  It also welcomed the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.  Jordan believed that the implementation of the resolutionwould considerably reduce current threats.  Jordan had hosted the first meeting of Arab States to strengthen implementation of the resolution, which had been an opportunity for Arab experts to meet with each other.

The Middle East faced a special threat of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and the risk that those weapons could fall into terrorists’ hands, she said.  Assistance was needed by some States to implement their commitments.  Jordan believed that regional security could not be realized through an arms race, but through cooperation.  Its approach was based on the desire to protect people and to avoid conflict.  Jordan called for international solidarity at all levels in order to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.

MURAT TASHIBAYEV ( Kazakhstan) said that his country had acceded to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Chemical Weapons Convention, among other related instruments.  The Biological Weapons Convention was one of the most important in the disarmament field, especially given that scientific achievements had provided the basis for new micro-organisms and toxins, which could be used as biological weapons, and the Internet made such knowledge accessible to more people, including extremist and terrorist groups.

He said that it was vital, therefore, to universalize the Biological Weapons Convention, with a view to achieving comprehensive coverage of all States.  He called on the international community to make sure that the manufacture and trade in biological and toxin materials was controlled.  In that light, he commended Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) for strengthening the non-proliferation regime, and stressed the need to improve national legislation and controls.  Also necessary was to develop a verification system for the Biological Weapons Convention.

Kazakhstan had created a system in compliance with international obligations on non-proliferation, which established full State control of biomaterials and technology, and created strict export controls.  In order to make further progress, the international community should pool its efforts, and, in that context, the decision of the review process of the Biological Weapons Convention to hold annual meetings of the States parties would be welcome.  Kazakhstan also appreciated the assistance it received from the United States, which had resulted in Kazakhstan’s first station of epidemiological control and in eradicating the most important anthrax development site in the former Soviet Union.

JAYANT PRASAD ( India) introduced a draft resolution, entitled “Measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction” (document A/C.1/62/L.22).  The resolution, first adopted in 2002, continued to command consensus, both in the First Committee and the General Assembly.

He said that the resolution called on United Nations Member States to take measures aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.  It underlined that the international response to that threat needed to be inclusive, multilateral, and global.  The resolution also requested the Secretary-General to compile a report on measures taken by international organizations on the linkage between the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  It would thus equip the General Assembly with system-wide information on work being done on the matter, both within the United Nations and in other bodies.  He called on delegations to continue their support of the initiative.

GABOR BRODI ( Hungary) introduced a draft resolution on the Biological Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/62/L.37).  The text built on past resolutions, but it also incorporated recent developments, in particular, the successful Conference of States Parties.  It noted with satisfaction the increase in the number of States parties to the Convention and welcomed the successful outcome of the Sixth Review Conference.  It also recalled the decision relating to the establishment of the Implementation Support Unit and on information exchange among States parties.  Hungary hoped that the draft would be adopted without a vote.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI ( Poland) introduced a draft resolution on the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/62/L.7).  The draft resolution was a concrete input his country had made for years, in an effort to promote the universality and full and effective implementation of all the provisions of that Convention.  Poland attached great importance to the role of the Organization for OPCW.  The draft resolution underlined that the Convention and its implementation contributed to enhancing international peace and security, and that its full, universal and effective implementation would contribute further to that goal.  The text was of special importance this year when the international community was celebrating the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention.

Other Disarmament Measures and International Security

JOHN BARRETT, Chairman of the United Nations Panel of Government Experts on Verification in All its Aspects, including the Role of the United Nations in the Field of Verification, said that the panel had achieved its two objectives:  producing a relatively short, action-oriented report -– along with forward- looking, practical recommendations for consideration by Member States -- and producing a report agreed to by all panel members.

He said that the panel had sought to build anew a broad consensus that verification had an important role to play in contributing to the security of all, today and in the future.  The 16-member panel’s composition had been determined by geographical representation and interest shown.  A reduction in the panel’s size had been decided,in order to maintain an action-oriented approach.

The panel’s work encompassed nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, he said.  It also covered conventional weapons.  The panel looked at verification as it applied to activities involving non-State actors.  It also looked at what had changed in the past decade in the international security environment and in the security needs of States, and how verification had addressed those needs.  In addition, it looked at how verification could address those needs in the future.

During the panel’s discussions, certain themes emerged, he went on.  Those included the concept of verification, verification experiences, techniques and methodologies of verification, and the need to build synergies and complementarity among bodies or agencies with responsibilities in the area of monitoring and verification.  The panel’s report sought to develop a basis for a new and widening consensus on the relationship between verification and the security of States, as well as how the role of verification could be enhanced in contributing to security.  Verification was a toolbox from which the international community could draw very useful instruments to enhance security.

He said that verification technologies continued to improve and be refined.  Those technologies were as much “low-tech” and available to all countries, as they were “high-tech”.  That meant that participation in verification did not have to be limited to just a few countries.  Countries could benefit from those developments to participate in the monitoring of agreements and activities most pertinent to them –- including where non-State actors were involved.  The act of verification could often be a confidence building measure in itself.  Successful verification built trust.  Countries could use it -– indeed had used it -- as a means to establish better, more stable relations with each other.  The good habits of cooperation in verification and transparency fostered greater confidence.

The international community had also learned that the importance of verification for its security lay in the fact that it was intimately connected with the implementation of treaties and agreements, and in compliance with them, he said.  Implementation and compliance had been the subject of growing attention.  Each of those areas had been examined in the panel’s report, for which the panel had tried to point the way for further work by Member States.

JORGE SKINNER-KLEE ( Guatemala), on behalf of the Central American Integration System, said that security had become an “integral part” of the regional agenda.  The Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects was a key priority for the Central American member countries, since such weapons caused a great number of deaths in the region.  The group reaffirmed its support for the implementation of the Action Programme, and supported all initiatives aimed at increasing international cooperation on that issue.

He pointed to the success of the regional conference held in Guatemala in May 2006, which had produced the “Antigua Declaration” establishing parameters and standards in the fight to eradicate the illicit small arms and light weapons trade.  The Declaration had signalled that illicit transfers of those weapons were one of the greatest dangers to the region, and he supported the adoption of a binding instrument to regulate the import, export and transit of such weapons.  He also praised the adoption of General Assembly resolution 61/89, and welcomed the establishment of a group of government experts charged with measuring the viability, reach and parameters of such a legally binding instrument.

He called on all States to comply with the provisions contained in Chapter Two of the Programme of Action in relation to the managing of arsenals and the destruction of confiscated small arms and light weapons.  It was important to regulate the acquisition and possession of such weapons within civil society, limiting the type and quantity of arms that could be acquired by civilians.

On cluster munitions, he recalled the Latin American Conference on the issue, which had taken place on 4 and 5 September in San Jose, Costa Rica.  Its participants had called on the international community to join the Oslo Process towards creating an international instrument on the prohibition of cluster munitions.  He called on the international community to support efforts to create a cluster-free zone, and likewise, asked countries that produced cluster weapons to cease doing so immediately.

JOSE JULIO PEREIRA GOMES ( Portugal), on behalf of the European Union, said that small arms and light weapons were instrumental in the deaths of more than 500,000 people annually, most of them civilians.  He welcomed the “Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development”, and called on Member States to subscribe to it.  More resources should be channelled to support implementation of the United Nations small arms Programme of Action.  The European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports had made an “important contribution” to strengthening transfer controls, by setting up conditions for responsible arms transfers by Union members and associated States.  The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies was also valuable.

He said that the illicit trade in ammunition was another problem, and the Union would support the work of the group of Governmental experts on conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus, to be established in 2008 pursuant to General Assembly resolution 61/72.  It was essential to establish global standards on the marking and tracing of small arms and light weapons, and the Union supported full implementation of the International Instrument to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons.  Brokering controls were another high priority, and, in that regard, the recommendations in the Governmental expert group’s report should be implemented.  

There was a “pressing need” for an arms trade treaty, since “every day, and everywhere, people are affected by irresponsible arms transfers”, he said.  The impact was particularly damaging in developing countries, especially in Africa, where those transfers diverted resources from poverty alleviation and other development work.  The Union also supported the elaboration of a comprehensive, legally binding instrument to establish international standards on the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.

The Union’s member States had also been working with other States in the field of man-portable air defence system (MANPAD)’s destruction and stockpile management, he said.  On landmines, the Union welcomed progress in universalizing the Mine Ban Convention.  It was likewise committed to the Nairobi Action Plan, and continued to provide assistance for mine clearance around the world.

He said that the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons was an integral part of international humanitarian law, and the Union supported the Plan of Action to promote that Convention’s universality.  He also highlighted the issue of cluster munitions, and noted that the Union had submitted a draft mandate for the negotiation of a legally binding instrument to be finalized by the end of 2008, which addressed the humanitarian concerns of cluster munitions.

JEAN-FRANCOIS DOBELLE (France), aligning himself with the statement made by the European Union, said that, of all the questions dealt with during the session of the First Committee, the item on conventional weapons had the greatest immediate impact on the security, well-being and survival of the inhabitants of the planet.  The Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) was an example of a complete and effective instrument, which was transparent and verifiable.  That instrument was going through a crisis, however, and France was organizing an informal conference on 5 and 6 November in Paris, to which all States parties to the treaty, as well as all candidates for adhesion to it, were invited. 

He said that regional action was not sufficient to curbthe uncontrolled spread of weapons from one continent to another, and irresponsible commerce, led to countless deaths.  The United Nations action programme dealt only with illicit commerce, and only with one category of weapons, namely, small arms and light weapons, but not with their munitions.  The programme also did not include any true international obligations.  Thus, France believed that the programme could be improved.  Specifically, it was necessary to address not only illicit commerce, but the formal trade of all types of conventional weapons, through a new international instrument. 

On anti-personnel mines, he said that the Mine Ban Convention was remarkable progress, whose impact was important and tangible.  Nevertheless, it was necessary to achieve its universality, and, in particular, he noted a number of countries that produced and used anti-personnel mines, but had still not adhered to the Convention.  He said that the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) had made progress recently.  At the last review conference, the Convention’s regime had been strengthened, with the adoption of, among other things, an action plan for the universalization of the Convention. 

Concerning cluster munitions, he said that France would spare no effort to address the humanitarian consequences of such weapons.  It associated itself with the declaration of the European Union in favour of a negotiation mandate on that issue.  

He turned the floor over to Francois Rivasseau.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU, President of the Third Review Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, took the floor to report on efforts to universalize that Convention.  Some progress had been made, including the accession of Cameroon, Gabon, and Montenegro.  In all, there had been 33 ratifications carried out during the past year.

He welcomed the valuable initiative undertaken by the European Union to support implementation of a plan of action to encourage accession, especially by the developing and least developed States suffering the effects of mines and explosive remnants of war.  He also noted the adoption by the European Union of a joint action to promote the universality of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which he said was a “far reaching and generously funded programme”.  The States parties to that Convention had also established a sponsorship programme to assist the least developed States, as well as mine-affected countries and those suffering from explosive remnants of war.

LAWRENCE OLUFEMI OBISAKIN ( Nigeria) presented three draft resolutions on behalf of the African Group:  the Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/C.1/62/L.24), the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (document A/C.1/62/L.26), and prohibition of dumping of radioactive wastes (document A/C.1/62/L.25).

He said that the draft resolution on the African Regional Centre essentially endorsed the report of the consultative mechanism that had been set up on the centre.  Among others, it recommended the creation of certain posts at the centre and made other recommendations on funding.

The draft on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty called on African States that had not yet done so to ratify that Treaty as soon as possible, he said.  It also called upon the nuclear-weapon States that had not signed the relevant protocols to do so as soon as possible.  Additionally, it called on African States that were party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but had not concluded comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA, to do so.  The draft resolution mirrored past resolutions, which the Committee had approved without a vote.  Nigeria requested that similar treatment be given to the text this year.

Turning to the draft on dumping of radioactive wastes, he said that the dumping of such waste constituted a serious health hazard, and its harmful effects on the environment were also well known.  The text called upon all States to take appropriate measures, with a view to preventing dumping of radioactive wastes that could infringe on the territories of others.  The elements were the same as in previous such texts, and the African Group was appealing for its passage.

Speaking in his national capacity, Mr. Obisakin said that the threat to peace and stability posed by small arms and light weapons was enormous and represented a danger to mankind.  Those lethal weapons must be controlled in a systematic way, in order to make the world safe and secure for all in accordance with the Charter and principles of the United Nations.  The United Nations Programme of Action was a key element in promoting long-term security and, as such, sustainable development for the developing world, and Africa, in particular.

Flowing from that action programme, various countries and regional groups had developed legal frameworks for combating and tracing that illicitly traded or transferred category of weapons, he said.  The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) had placed a moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture of small arms and light weapons in West Africa.  That moratorium was originally signed in 1998, and covered a three-year period.  Renewed in 2001 for another three years, that moratorium had led to the establishment of focal points or national commissions in 13 of the 15 member States of ECOWAS, as recommended by the Code of Conduct for the implementation of the moratorium, adopted by ECOWAS Heads of State in 1999.

ECOWAS had further demonstrated its unflinching commitment to the control of that category of weapons when, on 14 June 2006 in Abuja, Nigeria, its leaders signed the ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms And Light Weapons, Their Ammunitions and other Related Materials, he noted.  Nigeria had commenced domestication of that Convention.  The country believed that an arms trade treaty would not only help in tracing the movement of small arms and light weapons, but would also go a long way towards combating their illicit use and trade.  In that regard, Nigeria welcomed the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of a resolution in 2006 on an international instrument on marking and tracing the movements of illicit small arms and light weapons.  That resolution represented a credible step towards establishing international standards in the transfer of such arms and weapons, as well as control of their illicit brokering.

JÜRG STREULI ( Switzerland) agreed with previous speakers that the small arms Action Programme was indeed a “key instrument”.  Noting that an instrument on marking and tracing had been adopted by the Assembly General in 2005, he said that the challenge now lay in putting that instrument to work.  The informal working meeting organized by Canada with the support of Switzerland, which had taken place in Geneva in August on the control of transfers, had been a success.  Switzerland supported work towards a treaty on weapons brokering, and welcomed the creation of the group of Government experts, to begin work next February.

He called for an examination of the effects of armed violence on development, stressing the importance of the consensus reached by world leaders on the links between security, peace, human rights and development reflected in international efforts.  Thus, last year, Switzerland had launched a new initiative to make Governments aware of that connection, and, after the adoption of the Geneva Declaration on armed violence and development, begun coordinating a group of States to hold regional meetings and carry out research on that question. 

Stressing the importance of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, together with its protocols, he noted with pleasure that, not quite one year ago during the Third Review Conference of States parties, the fifth protocol on  explosive remnants of war had entered into force.  The prohibition of cluster munitions was also vital, and Switzerland would demand the adoption of an ambitious negotiation mandate at the next Conference of States parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva.  Switzerland adhered to the Oslo Declaration on cluster munitions, and called for the support of that process.

KARI KAHILUOTO (Finland), aligning himself with the statement made by the European Union, said that it was of the utmost importance that the 2008 Biennial Meeting of States on small arms succeeded in advancing the implementation of the Programme of Action and in rebuilding the consensual nature of the small arms process.  Practical implementation would build consensus, and consensus would forward practical implementation.  The Biennial Meeting of States could develop new working methods, such as peer reviews on implementation of the Action Programme.  The Meeting should also devote time to further developing the reporting of implementation of the action plan, as well as on assistance needs and follow-up of the small arms and light weapons process.

He said that the report of the group of Governmental experts on brokering had not contained specific recommendations on work for an international legal instrument, but it had defined brokering and associated activities.  Those definitions would serve as an excellent benchmark for United Nations Member States willing to develop their own legislation towards implementing their Programme of Action commitments.  Finland supported further work towards a negotiation mandate at the United Nations on an arms trade treaty, which was “one of the core issues at the nexus of development, human rights, and security”.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record