Sixty-second General Assembly

First Committee

18^th Meeting (AM)

SIGNING WEAPONS REDUCTION TREATIES, TALKING ABOUT NON-PROLIFERATION NOT ENOUGH;

NATIONS MUST HAVE ‘POLITICAL STRENGTH’ FOR COMPLIANCE, FIRST COMMITTEE TOLD

Results-Based Management Shores Up Disarmament Machinery; External Processes

Bring States Back Into Treaty-Based Multilateral Bodies, Making Them More Robust

There was a need for “results-based management” of the international disarmament machinery and to ensure that disarmament bodies were “a means to an end, and not an end unto themselves”, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today as it continued its thematic debates. 

Suggesting that disarmament efforts could benefit from creative approaches, Canada’s representative pointed to the Ottawa Treaty (Convention on Prohibitions of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction) and the Oslo agreement on cluster munitions as examples of that type of initiative.  Those two agreements were evidence that if States were serious about accomplishing something, they would find the appropriate diplomatic vehicle for so doing, and that innovative, external processes most often brought States back to work within their treaty-based multilateral agreements and multilateral bodies, making them more relevant and robust.

Similarly, the United States representative said that signing weapons reduction treaties and making statements on non-proliferation were not enough.  To be effective, the disarmament machinery needed to be backed up by the political will not only to sign, but to implement substantive treaties.  Nations must have the political strength to comply with the treaties they signed.  The international community must insist on full compliance with international obligations.

He said that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was the most universal tool in the non-proliferation toolbox, but it confronted tremendous challenges, among them, a crisis of non-compliance.  Other problems included the public revelation of Iran’s two decade-long clandestine nuclear programme and its nuclear weapons ambition, which had become clear to the international community, Libya’s secret nuclear weapons programme, the A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network, which supplied enrichment technology and nuclear weapons-related designs to Libya and Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s announced withdrawal from the Treaty and its subsequent nuclear detonation.

Also today, several delegates described the impact of conventional weapons on the lives of ordinary people in their countries.  The representative of Lesotho said he was “deeply concerned” by the widespread proliferation and indiscriminate use of small arms and light weapons.  In countries emerging from, or still engulfed in, internal conflict, such weapons were transferred to non-State actors and fuelled those conflicts, creating havoc and causing enormous humanitarian suffering.  Due to their easy availability, illicit small arms and light weapons from conflict-ridden countries often found their way into neighbouring countries, where they were used for criminal purposes.

When the Committee resumed its thematic debate on conventional weapons, Mozambique’s representative said that landmines still presented a serious challenge to the efforts undertaken by his Government towards combating absolute poverty and promoting social and economic development in rural areas.  For that reason, mine clearance activities constituted a fundamental pillar and cross- cutting issue in its five year national programme.  There had been some progress in mine clearance in recent years.  In 2006, for instance, 10 million square metres were cleared and approximately 5 million square metres surveyed, allowing for an additional 83 villages of approximately 335,000 people to be declared free of landmines.  However, 442 areas in 57 districts of the six central and southern provinces remained infected from those insidious devices, he said. 

Also today, the Committee heard the introduction of three draft resolutions on convening the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, the United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament, and the report of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.

The representatives of Norway, Indonesia and Uruguay made statements in the thematic debate on disarmament machinery.

A statement in the thematic debate on conventional weapons was also made by the representative of the Republic of Korea.

The representative of Qatar also spoke.

The First Committee will meet again at noon on Monday, 29 October, to conclude its thematic debate on conventional weapons.

Background

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue its thematic debates on conventional weapons and disarmament machinery.  It would also have an informal exchange of views with representatives of non-governmental organizations.

Thematic Debate -- Disarmament Machinery

DAVID KENNEDY ( United States) said that his country was committed to the employment, where appropriate, of multilateral approaches to solutions to the challenges of non-proliferation, the elimination of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and the control and elimination of other weapons, which undermined international security.  Its consistent support for the Chemical Weapons Convention (Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction), the Biological Weapons Convention (Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction), the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (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), and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons were clear evidence of that commitment.

He said his country believed that signing weapons reduction treaties and making statements on non-proliferation were not enough.  To be effective, the disarmament machinery needed to be backed up by political will, not only to sign, but to implement substantive treaties.  Nations must have the political strength to comply with the treaties they signed.  The international community must insist on full compliance with international obligations.

The thematic debates in the First Committee had proved valuable in bringing focus to current issues and helping the Committee to use its time more efficiently, he went on.  However, that body still had a tendency to function like a vehicle on “automatic pilot” far too often.  The same resolutions that had been adopted for many years continued to be reintroduced in each session, even when they did not remain relevant to today’s international security situation.  Delegations should seriously reconsider the utility of reintroducing resolutions that had been introduced five or more times.

He said that the Non-Proliferation Treaty remained the most universal tool in the non-proliferation toolbox.  However, it confronted tremendous challenges today, the most fundamental being a crisis of non-compliance.  That challenge required no elaboration, but it was worth emphasising that this year was the first time that the States parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty began a Treaty review cycle since some of the worst of those problems first appeared.  Those problems included:  the public revelation of Iran’s two decade-long clandestine nuclear programme and its nuclear weapons ambition, which had became clear to the international community; Libya’s secret nuclear weapons programme; the A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network, which supplied enrichment technology and nuclear weapons-related designs to Libya and Iran; the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s announced withdrawal from the Treaty and its subsequent nuclear detonation; and debates in the Non-Proliferation Treaty coming to focus on what the International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General had referred to as the “Achilles heel” of the regime -– the spread of technology giving more States the ability, if they chose to do so, to overcome the principal remaining technical hurdle to proliferation -- producing fissile material usable in nuclear weapons. 

Those developments presented the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime with the most significant challenges it had ever faced:  how to ensure its continued viability in the face of flagrant non-proliferation non-compliance.  Failure to ensure compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty undermined the bedrock objective of the Treaty, which was to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons.

He said that under the invigorated leadership of the six presidents of the 2006 session of the Conference on Disarmament, that body had held the most substantive discussions on issues related to disarmament in many years.  This year, with the exception of a handful of delegations, all members of the Conference had agreed on, or agreed not to, prevent consensus on a proposed programme of work, the closest the Conference had come to that goal in 10 years.  The single most important issue that the Conference could and should address was a legally binding ban on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosives.  The international community had expressed a desire for such a treaty for decades and it was irresponsible to delay it further.

The United States was pleased that the United Nations Disarmament Commission, in 2006, broke its long stalemate over its agenda, he said, adding that his country had also welcomed the inclusion of non-proliferation on the agenda as a concern equal to nuclear disarmament, as well as the agenda item related to improving the Commission’s working methods.  Still, the Disarmament Commission damaged its credibility by selecting as a vice-chairman -– more than once -– a State that was under heavy international scrutiny for its clandestine nuclear weapons programme.  The conduct of the last session did not give reason for optimism that the current three-year study would have productive results.

GEOFF GARTSHORE ( Canada) said that the international disarmament machinery was not immune from the current focus of many Governments on “results-based management”.  It was necessary to ensure that disarmament bodies were a means to an end, and not an end unto themselves”.  Results had been particularly limited in the Conference on Disarmament.  The Conference’s purpose was negotiation, not discussion, and in that respect, progress had been at “zero” for almost 10 years.

He said that disarmament efforts could sometimes benefit from creative approaches.  The Mine Ban Convention (Convention on Prohibitions of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction) and the Oslo agreement on cluster munitions were both examples of that type of creativity.  Those two agreements were evidence that, first, if States were serious about accomplishing something, they would find the appropriate diplomatic vehicle for so doing, and second, that innovative, external processes most often brought States back to work within their treaty-based multilateral agreements and multilateral bodies, making them more relevant and robust.

It was important to universalize the key non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament treaties and conventions, ensuring the maximum membership in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (Test-Ban Treaty or CTBT), he stressed. 

He praised the structure of this year’s meetings of the First Committee, which held discussions under each cluster of items with a panel of experts.  The efforts of recent years to “biennialize” or “triennialize” resolutions must be continued, and lengthy statements should be replaced with brief texts, whenever possible.  States must endeavour to “rise above our local and regional security concerns”, in order to reach consensus on draft resolutions.

INGUNN VATNE ( Norway) said that, in recent years, key multilateral bodies had been struggling to live up to their expectations or, even worse, had been “fully paralysed”.  She noted some positive trends, including the successful outcome of the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention, and the “impressive” results achieved over the past several years by the Chemical Weapons and the Mine Ban Conventions.  However, the situation in the Conference of Disarmament was “unsustainable”.  She urged the Conference’s Member States to demonstrate flexibility and allow that body to perform its task.

She said her country had provided financial support for consultations on a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, but the necessary consensus had not yet emerged.  Thus, more consultations were needed before a decision could be taken. 

Norway had a particular interest in the functioning of the First Committee, which it considered to be “fundamental” in advancing the causes of disarmament and non-proliferation, she continued.  Progress should be made in the Committee’s operation.  For example, at present, tremendous efforts were exerted to mobilize the highest number of co-sponsors possible for draft resolutions, but “we should ask ourselves whether this race for co-sponsorship is the best way to make use of the four weeks available”; the time could be perhaps better used on other matters.

CHANG DONG-HEE ( Republic of Korea) said that his country appreciated the coordination efforts that had been made by the six presidents, or “P6”, of the Conference on Disarmament.  As a member of the “P6”, the Republic of Korea was happy to note that this year’s group of six presidents had built on the work of last year’s.  He appealed to Conference Member States to show a little more flexibility, in order to break the impasse and return to work. 

He noted that the United Nations Disarmament Commission had made some progress, and his country hoped that it could successfully complete its work next year.  The Republic of Korea also thanked Patricia Lewis, Director of United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) for her presentation to the Committee.  That statement had provided insight into the current challenges facing the disarmament machinery.  The UNIDIR had also organized seminars on various issues, and participated in informal discussions of United Nations disarmament bodies in 2007.  The Republic of Korea would continue to support the Institute’s effort to advance key disarmament issues.

Turning to the proposal for holding a special session on disarmament, he noted that long-term gains in disarmament were built on trust, and trust took time.  His country hoped that consensus would soon be reached on convening such a session.  The Republic of Korea also appreciated the work of the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters.  Considering the new Secretary-General’s interest in the disarmament agenda, it was certain that the Board would play a more important role than ever in coming years.  This year, the Board’s report contained several important recommendations for the Committee to take into account.  Hopefully, the Secretariat would use those recommendations as input to the Secretary-General’s effort to revitalize the disarmament agenda.

Welcoming the progress in the Korean peninsula, he said that his country strongly supported multilateralism in addressing the security challenges in the region.  It remained committed to the denuclearization of the peninsula and hoped that the support of the international community would continue, as the parties strove to achieve true and lasting peace.

ANDY RACHMIANTO (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, introduced a draft resolution on “Convening of the Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament” (document A/C.1/62/L.17).  The resolution called for the establishment of an open-ended working group to continue consideration of the objectives and agenda of such a session, as well as the possible establishment of a preparatory committee for the convening of a fourth special session.

He further introduced a draft resolution entitled “United Nations Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament” (document A/C.1/62/L.15), which underlined the importance of the Centres in promoting understanding and cooperation among States.  The draft appealed to Member States, as well as international governmental and non-governmental organizations, to make voluntary contributions to the Centres.

FEDERICO PERAZZA ( Uruguay), introduced a draft resolution on the Report of the Disarmament Commission (document A/C.1/62/L.3).  That draft text was the result of informal consultations between Member States and had been prepared in a manner similar to past resolutions.  It contained elements that were no different from the ones in last year’s resolution.  It proposed the dates of 14 April to 2 May 2008 for the Commission’s 2008 session.  Those dates had been suggested bearing in mind other meetings taking place next year.  As in past years, the report contained four chapters.  The chapter on conclusions and recommendations included the reports of the two working groups, which had been adopted by consensus.

He added that the Disarmament Commission had organized its substantive session in accordance with the agreed mandate.  Despite some progress in the working groups, the documents provided by the two groups had not been annexed to the report.  However, those documents would make it possible to begin early deliberations for the substantive session in 2008.  That was important since next year was the third in the final cycle of the present discussions.  He hoped that the draft resolution would, as in past years, enjoy consensus in the Committee.

TARIQ ALI FARAJ H. AL-ANSARI ( Qatar) announced his decision not to submit a draft resolution entitled “Solving Disputes Over Nuclear Issues by Peaceful Means”.

Thematic Debate -- Conventional Weapons

FILIPE CHIDUMO ( Mozambique) said that landmines still presented a serious challenge to the efforts undertaken by his Government towards combating absolute poverty and promoting social and economic development in rural areas.  For that reason, mine clearance activities constituted a fundamental pillar and cross- cutting issue in its five-year national programme (2005-2009).  There had been some progress in that regard in recent years.  In 2006, for instance, 10 million square metres were cleared and approximately 5 million square metres surveyed, allowing for an additional 83 villages of approximately 335,000 people to be declared free of landmines.  However, 442 areas in 57 districts of the six central and southern provinces remained infected from those insidious devices.

He said that the overall estimated extent of landmine contamination was approximately 48.5 million square metres.  Since March, the Government, in collaboration with a number of operators, had been engaged in confirmatory survey, with a view to determining the extent of the remaining mine threat, as well as the cost for a mine clearance plan in the remaining six provinces.  The preliminary results were expected by the end of the year.

There had also been progress in the country in the area of mine-victim assistance, he went on.  In addition to physical assistance and reintegration of landmine victims, a national plan for people with disabilities was approved by the Parliament in April 2006.  That plan was elaborated in conformity with the African Disability Decade and reflected the commitment of the Government towards people with disabilities, including landmine victims.

He said that, despite the positive developments, Mozambique would likely be unable to meet the targets set forth in the Mine Ban Convention, owing to financial constraints.  In recent years, there had been considerable reductions in financial support for mine action activities.  To compound that negative trend, all major operators in Mozambique had ceased operations since 2006.  It would be a pity if the international community were to turn its back on the people of Mozambique at this critical juncture.  Without adequate funding, the necessary plans could not be implemented.

LEBOHANG FINE MAEMA ( Lesotho) said he was “deeply concerned” by the widespread proliferation and indiscriminate use of small arms and light weapons.  In countries emerging from, or still engulfed in, internal conflict, such weapons were transferred to non-State actors and fuelled those conflicts, creating havoc and causing enormous humanitarian suffering.  Due to their easy availability, illicit small arms and light weapons from conflict-ridden countries often found their way into neighbouring countries, where they were used for criminal purposes.

In Lesotho, he said, criminals used illegal firearms to commit robberies and murders in the cities.  Organized criminal groups used those weapons to perpetuate illegal acts, like cattle-rustling, in the countryside.  Criminals obtained those arms by bartering for them with cannabis.  That was an ongoing problem across Lesotho, in particular, along the border with South Africa.  He called for assistance to enable his country to combat that menace, noting that the need for international assistance, including technical assistance for countries in need, had been stipulated in 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.  Lesotho was concerned, however, about the slow progress of the implementation of several provisions of its provisions.

The Government of Lesotho had adopted some legal and administrative measures to resolve the problem of illegal firearms, he said.  For example, a new law had been drafted on the subject in 2006, and a Stock Theft Act had been enacted.  The Government had also encouraged civilians in possession of unlicensed firearms to hand those over, without fear of prosecution.  Lesotho attached great importance to the cooperation it shared with South Africa, and continued to engage in bilateral operations with that country to combat the flow of illicit firearms, ammunition and drugs across their borders. 

He said his country was a party to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on the Control of Firearms, Ammunition and Other Related Materials, as well as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.  Lesotho also subscribed to the 2000 Bamako Declaration on an African Common Position on the Illicit Proliferation, Circulation and Trafficking of Small Arms and Light Weapons.  It was encouraged by progress achieved towards implementation of the resolution on a possible arms trade treaty.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record