ReliefWeb (press release), Switzerland
Source: United Nations General Assembly
Date: 24 Oct 2008
Lofty goals of peace, disarmament, non-proliferation require sound
regional programmes, first committee hears as thematic debates
continue
GA/DIS/3375
Sixty-third General Assembly
First Committee
17th Meeting (PM)
Disarmament Commission Needs Profound Self-Evaluation; If Disarmament
Conference Remains Paralysed, Calls Will Ensue to Pursue Other Avenues
to Advance Disarmament
The lofty goals of peace, disarmament and non-proliferation would not
be achieved without effective programmes at the regional level, the
representative of Nepal told the First Committee (Disarmament and
International Security) today as it completed its thematic debate on
regional disarmament and security and continued hearing statements on
disarmament machinery and nuclear weapons.
Introducing a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre
for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document
A/C.1/63/L.42), the representative said that, while global disarmament
instruments were stagnant, regional centres could play a significant
role to promote confidence at the regional and subregional levels.
Colombia’s representative said the Regional Centres for peace
disarmament and development, established by the United Nations in
various parts of the world, particularly the Centre in Latin America
and the Caribbean, had been particularly valuable. She stressed the
importance of coordination among the different United Nations offices
operating in the region, saying the establishment of synergies between
them and the use of their technical and administrative infrastructure
were critical to the support of national programmes and projects.
A number of other representatives, including from Pakistan, agreed
that, if the world wanted peace, it would have to broker and maintain
it at the regional level. "Global peace and security depends, in large
measure, on stability at the regional and subregional levels," said
Pakistan’s delegate. "Instability at the regional and subregional
levels spawns arms races and undermines the international community’s
efforts aimed at arms control and disarmament."
Then, too, when States were engaged in a bilateral process of
confidence-building, they failed to register progress on arms control
and disarmament measures because of extra-regional concerns, he
said. Such "roadblocks" could only be removed through effective
measures for disarmament and arms limitation at the global level, both
in the fields of weapons of mass destruction and conventional arms.
Algeria’s delegation introduced a draft resolution on the
Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region
(document A/C.1/63/L.18). The representative of the Netherlands, on
behalf of the extended bureau of the United Nations Disarmament
Commission, introduced the draft resolution on the Report of the
Disarmament Commission (document A/C.1/L.48). Venezuela’s delegate
tabled the draft text entitled Report of the Conference on Disarmament
(document A/C.1/63/L.47).
If the Conference on Disarmament remained paralysed, Norway’s
representative warned, "there will be stronger calls for considering
other avenues in order to move the disarmament process forward". The
Conference was plagued by standstill and ran the risk of being
marginalized. As long as there was no consensus on a programme of
work, the Conference could not move on negotiations on a much-needed
fissile material cut-off treaty. Norway urged its Member States,
especially those which had not yet joined consensus on a work
programme, to demonstrate flexibility and allow the Conference to do
what it was intended to do.
He further noted that the Disarmament Commission was not performing as
well as it should. This year, it could not agree on any substantive
recommendations. The Commission was intended to be a deliberative
body, yet few countries found it useful enough to send experts from
their capitals or Geneva. If the Commission was to be maintained, it
should engage in an honest debate on its working methods. It had to
provide an added value. He suggested having a shorter session with a
focus on one or two topics, clearly defined by the General
Assembly. Also, the Commission’s report did not necessarily have to be
a negotiated document; a Chair’s summary should suffice. The
Commission was, after all, a deliberative body, and he urged it to
engage at its next session in "profound self-evaluation".
Statements were also made by the representatives of Brazil (on behalf
of Southern Common Market (MARCOS)), Angola, Myanmar, Azerbaijan,
Malta, Peru, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Monday, 27 October to
conclude its thematic debates.
Background
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this
afternoon to continue its thematic discussions on regional disarmament
and security and on disarmament machinery. The Committee would also
hear the introduction of related draft texts.
Thematic Debate on Regional Disarmament and Security
LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil), speaking on behalf of the
Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), pointed to General Assembly
resolution 41/60J and said it had been 21 years since the
establishment of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace,
Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. It was
the only one of three Centres in the Office for Disarmament Affairs
with a mandate that included, not only measures towards peace and
disarmament, but also growth in economic and social development. That
mandate had allowed the Regional Centre to establish the cooperation
of some United Nations agencies and civil society to promote and
integrate disarmament into the development programmes of States in the
region.
He said that the Centre, since its creation, had assisted States in
the region, through human and financial resources, in the promotion of
security, disarmament and development at the regional and subregional
levels. In disarmament, its assistance was aimed at development and
confidence-building measures. It had helped to organize seminars, such
as the one on developing a regional instrument for marking and
tracking weapons. He underscored the contribution of the Centre in
fighting the illicit trafficking of firearms.
In coordination with global organizations, the Centre had supported
initiatives proposed by Member States to promote and implement
multilateral instruments on disarmament and the non-proliferation of
nuclear, chemical, biological weapons and their delivery systems, he
noted. The lack of financial resources would seriously affect its
capacity to effectively complete its mandate.
ISMAEL A. GASPAR MARTINS (Angola), speaking on behalf of the United
Nations Standing Advisory Committee for Security Questions in Central
Africa, recalled that the Committee had been established by the
Secretary General on 28 May 1992. It was composed of the 11 member
States of the Economic Community of Central African States
(ECCAS). Its main goal was to put in place confidence-building
measures, work towards the decrease in armaments in the region, and
promote the economic and social development of the Central Africa
subregion. It was an instrument of preventive diplomacy, aimed at
heading off conflicts within and between its member countries. It met
twice per year; initially, at the expert level with civil and military
high-ranking officials, and subsequently, at the ministerial level,
with the participation of Ministers of External Relations and
Defence. It could also meet at the level of Heads of State and
Government.
He said that the Committee, at its ministerial meetings, had adopted
recommendations aimed at preventing the eruption or resurgence of
conflicts and restore peace in situations of open conflict. The
Committee had also discussed measures to promote interactive
cooperation in the security domain, share experiences on disarmament,
demobilization and reintegration programmes for former combatants, as
well as examine ways and means of implementing the various
international instruments relating to disarmament and
non-proliferation in Central Africa. It had achieved several things
so far, including: the signing of a non-aggression pact in Yaoundé
(Cameroon) on 8 July 1996; the creation of an early warning mechanism
for Central African countries (MARAC); the creation of a Central
African multinational force (FOMAC); the creation of the Peace and
Security Council of Central Africa (COPAX); and the creation of the
Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy.
The Committee had played an undeniably pivotal role in the prevention
of conflicts, he said. Angola, during its mandate, would continue to
encourage member States to spare no effort in dealing with any
relevant situation that constituted a threat to peace, stability and
security of the subregion.
U KYAW ZWAR MINN ( Myanmar) said that, in the face of current global
challenges, the Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament fostered a
climate of understanding and cooperation, and provided education on
disarmament and non-proliferation. The Centres also functioned as a
forum for States in the region to interact on security issues of
regional and global concern.
He welcomed the opening of the United Nations Regional Centre for
Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific in Kathmandu and
commended its important work promoting international and regional
dialogue. Conferences held in Japan and the Republic of Korea had
offered participants from Governments, non-governmental organizations,
academia and research institutions, among others, an opportunity to
discuss various issues.
The Centre would effectively serve the needs of its 43-county
constituency. But to continue to do so depended largely on resources
made available to it. Myanmar shared the view expressed in the
Secretary-General’s report that sporadic and insufficient core funding
impacted directly on the sustainability and quality of the activities
and services of the Centre. He hoped that adequate resources from the
regular budget and from voluntary contributions would be made
available.
RAZA BASHIR TARAR ( Pakistan) said global peace and security still
depended largely on stability at regional and subregional
levels. Instability at regional and subregional levels spawned arms
races and undermined the international community’s efforts aimed at
arms control and disarmament. But at times, States that were engaged
in a bilateral process of confidence-building failed to register
progress on arms control and disarmament measures because of
extraregional concerns. Such "road blocks" could only be removed
through effective measures for disarmament and arms limitation at the
global level, both in the fields of weapons of mass destruction and
conventional arms.
He said that confidence-building measures in the realm of security at
regional levels had to be tailored to the region’s character and
should begin with issues such as transparency and risk reduction,
before States found themselves in a position to pursue more
substantive arms control and disarmament measures. In addition, those
measures should also aim at preserving a balance in the defence
capabilities of States at the lowest level of armaments, placing
special responsibility on the militarily significant States and States
with larger military capabilities to promote agreements for regional
peace and security.
Regional arrangements for disarmament and arms limitation should give
priority to the elimination of the most destabilizing military
capabilities and imbalances, he said. A stable balance of conventional
forces was necessary to ensure strategic stability, particularly in
tense regions. Massive inductions of sophisticated weaponry increased
conventional asymmetries and forced greater dependence on nuclear and
missile deterrence.
He said that confidence-building measures could lead to favourable
conditions for the peaceful settlement of international problems and
disputes. However, without progress towards eliminating underlying
disputes and causes of mistrust between States, the utility of
confidence-building measures diminished.
Pakistan had tabled draft texts on regional disarmament, conventional
arms control and confidence-building measures at regional and
subregional levels, recognizing the significance of regional
approaches, he said.
In South Asia, Pakistan was pursuing a composite dialogue process that
included confidence-building measures in nuclear and conventional
weapons fields. He said some measures were already operational,
including the establishment of hotlines and agreements of
pre-notification of flight testing of ballistic missiles, and reducing
risks of accidents relating to nuclear weapons.
It was time to advance from risk reduction to restraint, and the
avoidance of an arms race, he said. For that purpose, Pakistan had
proposed the establishment of a strategic restraint regime (SRR) in
South Asia with three interlocking elements: conflict resolution;
nuclear and missile restraint; and conventional balance. The regime’s
objectives could be facilitated through parallel progress towards the
resolution of outstanding disputes in the region.
He said that the international community had an important role to play
in promoting regional peace by supporting a comprehensive and
equitable approach to peace and security, and by avoiding policies
that created nuclear disparities, which undermined strategic
stability. The international community could also promote regional
peace by discouraging the introduction of destabilizing weapon
systems, which could lead to an arms race and undermine military
balance. It could agree on arms control and disarmament measures at
the global level to create an environment conducive for substantive
restraint measures in different regions.
OGTAY ISMAYIL-ZADA ( Azerbaijan) said his country actively
participated in joint efforts to address regional and global issues,
with particular focus on regional security, combating terrorism,
non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ensuring energy
security. The region should be free from weapons of mass
destruction. Development of regional relations in line with the
nuclear non-proliferation norms was a precondition for ensuring and
strengthening stability at the regional and global levels.
He said that regional disarmament and security played a vital role in
establishing peace in conflict situations. Unfortunately, unresolved
conflicts in many instances became a source of concentration of
uncontrolled arms and provided fertile ground for transnational
organized crime and other illegal activities.
During the last decade, Armenia had intensively built up its military
presence and capability in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and other
occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Data had shown that the numbers of
unaccounted for and uncontrolled arms in the occupied territories had
been consistently increasing. So far, Armenia was hiding up to 316
tanks, 324 armoured combat vehicles and 322 artillery systems in
occupied territories. "These items of equipment must be counted
against the maximum levels of Armenia’s holdings and it is obvious
that our neighbour has exceeded its ceilings more than twice, thus,
seriously changing the military balance in its favour", he asserted.
As a consequence, he said, great numbers of UTLEs (unaccounted and
uncontrolled treaty-limited equipment) were accumulated in the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The occupied territories of
Azerbaijan gave Armenia an opportunity to use repair facilities and
transfer and hide UTLEs from the CFE (Treaty on Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe) community.
"The statements of Armenian officials are full of accusations towards
Azerbaijan about its alleged militaristic intentions and armaments
race. The Armenians are stirring hysteria about oil revenues of
Azerbaijan, which are supposedly being used for military purposes
only", he said.
The increase in Azerbaijan’s military budget was a matter of overall
economic development of the country and the general increase of the
State budget. "We are not exceeding the usual norms of expenditures in
a peace time despite the fact of occupation and undeclared war", he
said, while noting that the considerable part of expenditures went
towards salaries, housing and other social needs of the military
personnel. The military budget of Armenia as a percentage of gross
domestic product (GDP) was 3.86 per cent, while Azerbaijan’s figure
held at 3.26 per cent. "I want to declare that, as long as Armenia
continues to follow its aggressive policy, any talks about peace,
stability and all-inclusive cooperation in our region are irrelevant",
he said.
CLAUDIA BLUM DE BARBERI (Colombia) said the Regional Centres for peace
disarmament and development, established by the United Nations in
various parts of the world, particularly the Centre in Latin America
and the Caribbean, had been particularly valuable. She stressed the
importance of coordination among the different United Nations offices
operating in the region, saying the establishment of synergies between
them and the use of their technical and administrative infrastructure
were critical to the support of national programmes and projects.
She said Colombia was an example of those synergies. In 2005, her
country had started consultations with the Regional Centre, in order
to start benefiting from its training courses. The United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC) had participated in those consultations.
The Regional Centre should play an increasingly active role in
facilitating cooperation and in monitoring the implementation of the
Programme of Actionto Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade
inSmall Armsand Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. Colombia was also
interested in the Regional Centre’s support in carrying out some
projects of national interest.
LARBI EL HADJ ALI ( Algeria) introduced a draft resolution on the
Strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region
(document A/C.1/63/L.18). It called upon all States of the
Mediterranean region that have not yet done so to adhere to all
multilaterally negotiated legal instruments in the field of
disarmament and non-proliferation, thus creating the necessary
conditions for strengthening peace and cooperation in the region.
He said the draft text would encourage the Mediterranean countries to
strengthen further their cooperation in combating terrorism in all its
forms, including the possible resort by terrorists to use weapons of
mass destruction, and in combating international crime and illicit
arms transfers and illicit drug production, consumption and
trafficking.
A new paragraph welcomed the adoption of a joint declaration of the
Paris Summit in July, launching a reinforced partnership, the
Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, he noted, adding his
hope that the draft text would garner the Committee’s support.
SAVIOUR BORG ( Malta) said the First Committee remained the "perfect
platform" during the annual General Assembly session for Member States
to discuss, not only matters related to global disarmament, but urgent
pressing issues concerning international security, especially regional
items.
He said that the Mediterranean region epitomized many of the thorny
and multifaceted problems related to socio-economic and political
instability. Since its independence in 1964, Malta had worked hard to
promote security and cooperation in the region. Initiatives and
processes of inclusion that various organizations had set in motion
had bridged the divide within that strategically divided area and
Malta had actively participated in diverse regional institutions and
initiatives, including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Mediterranean Action Plan and the Med Forum. Malta was looking forward
to working closely with European Union-Med partners in the Barcelona
process. Critical issues persisted in the region, however, including
difficulties in the search for a durable solution in the Middle East
and the core question of Palestine.
This year, Malta had hosted the first ever European Union-League of
Arab States foreign affairs ministerial meeting, at which participants
had stressed the need for a dialogue between the Union’s 27 members
and the League’s 22 Arab States, he noted. The meeting had provided a
useful and constructive opportunity for open dialogue on enhanced
cooperation on regional and global issues of common
concern. Subsequent meetings to be held in Vienna and a proposed
meeting in Cairo would serve as "building blocks" for an invigorated
partnership.
He said that one of Malta’s current concerns was the influx of
migrants, which was impacting negatively on the country’s limited
resources. Malta had already received a total of 2,522 migrants, a
situation in the Mediterranean demanding concerted action. Malta
remained committed to its international obligations in addressing that
pressing humanitarian problem and welcomed the adoption of the
European Union’s Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which would
contribute to a holistic approach to tackle illegal and legal
immigration.
LUIS ENRIQUE CHAVEZ ( Peru) highlighted the positive work of the
Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean since its creation
by the General Assembly 21 years ago. It was the only one of three
regional centres whose mandate included not only the implementation of
measures in favour of peace and disarmament, but also the promotion of
social and economic development.
He said that the additional mandate had allowed it to develop
activities that went beyond the mere field of disarmament,
establishing relations of cooperation and synergies with some United
Nations agencies, such as the Office on Drugs and Crime, among
others. The Regional Centre had assisted the States of the region on
initiatives directed at disarmament, integrating the disarmament theme
into sustainable development. It had also granted assistance to States
in the promotion and implementation of multilateral instruments and
the creation of standards for confidence- and security-building
measures.
Those and other initiatives had been made possible thanks to voluntary
contributions, he said. Despite insufficient financial and human
resources, the Centre had been consolidated as an efficient, viable,
and relevant institution for assistance to all States of the region in
the promotion of security, disarmament and development at the
subregional and regional levels. The voluntary contributions had
drastically reduced since last year, while the demands of States were
increasingly more numerous and diversified, affecting the Centre’s
capacity to respond in an efficient manner.
He said that the Centre’s financial stability deeply concerned the
countries of the region. He pointed to the draft resolution A/63/157
which requested the Secretary-General to provide, for the biennial
2010-2011, the necessary support to assure the sustainability of the
activities and basic operations of the Centre.
MADHU RAMAN ACHARYA (Nepal), introducing a draft resolution on the
United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and
the Pacific (document A/C.1/63/L.42), said that, while global
disarmament instruments were stagnant, regional centres could play a
significant role to promote confidence at regional and subregional
levels. As the host country of a Regional Centre, Nepal was committed
to lend its full support by consolidating the Kathmandu process.
He said that the draft resolution took into account the valuable
suggestions provided in informal consultations, as well as the report
of the Secretary-General, in which he indicated that the Regional
Centre needed core funding for its staffing and operations. The lofty
goals of peace, disarmament and non-proliferation would not be
achieved without effective programmes at the regional level. He
thanked Governments and donors that had provided resources and urged
Member States to generously contribute to the Centre’s programmes so
it could fulfil its objective effectively.
Thematic Debate on United Nations Disarmament Machinery
PIETER DE KLERK (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the extended
bureau of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, introduced the
draft resolution contained in document A/C.1/L.48 entitled Report of
the Disarmament Commission.
In accordance with General Assembly resolution 61/67, the draft text
recommended that the Commission include in its agenda for the 2009
substantive session an item entitled "Elements of a draft declaration
of the 2010s as the fourth disarmament decade". It also recommended
that the Commission intensify consultations, with a view to reaching
agreement on remaining agenda items before the start of its
substantive session in 2009. Those consultations might be conducted by
the present Bureau or by the Bureau to be elected in the coming
month. The urgency of issues before the Commission was increasing and
it should seize the opportunity of having fruitful, multilateral
dialogue in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation.
GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ (Venezuela) introduced a draft resolution
entitled Report of the Conference on Disarmament (document
A/C.1/63/L.47), which would have the Assembly recognize the need to
conduct multilateral negotiations with the aim of reaching agreement
on concrete issues and call on the Conference to further intensify
consultations and explore possibilities, with a view to reaching an
agreement on a programme of work. He called on the Committee to adopt
the resolution without submitting it to a vote.
VEHBI ESGEL ETENSEL ( Turkey) said his country favoured global
disarmament and supported all efforts towards sustaining international
security through arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament. As
global problems could not be solved unilaterally or in small circles
of "likeminded nations", effective multilateralism was "necessary and
achievable". On the multilateral disarmament machinery, he said the
Conference on Disarmament, the largest disarmament negotiating forum,
had a leading role in addressing security challenges, but it had not
yet overcome its decade-long stalemate.
He said that, under Turkey’s presidency of that Conference, a
compromise package had been submitted on behalf of the 2008
Presidents, and he encouraged members to begin talks on a fissile
material cut-off treaty. The forum might also take initiatives in
other areas, such as parallel advances on negative security assurances
and prevention of an arms race in outer space. Calling the "P-6"
platform an effective instrument for successfully steering the
Conference, he welcomed the incoming Presidents’ intention to continue
that practice. Expanding membership was not a priority, and that
matter should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
In closing, he said that, while the current disarmament machinery had
developed significant commitments, it could do better, and he urged
States to find the political will to do so.
KNUT LANGELAND ( Norway) said that multilateral approaches to
disarmament and non-proliferation were essential in developing,
maintaining and further strengthening fundamental norms. A landmark
was achieved this year through the adoption of the Cluster Munitions
Convention in Dublin. The Convention strengthened international
humanitarian law and provided a framework for implementation. The
process towards its adoption had clearly demonstrated that
multilateralism worked. What were required were innovative approaches
involving all relevant stakeholders and mobilization of the necessary
political will and determination to move forward. Important lessons
could be drawn from the humanitarian disarmament approach.
He said that the Conference on Disarmament was plagued by standstill
and ran the risk of being marginalized. As long as there was no
consensus on a programme of work, the Conference could not move on
negotiations on a much needed fissile material cut-off treaty. Norway
urged its Member States, especially those which had not yet joined
consensus on a work programme, to demonstrate flexibility and allow
the Conference to what it was intended to do. However, the Conference
was not an end in itself, he said, adding "if this body remains
paralysed, there will be stronger calls for considering other avenues
in order to move the disarmament process forward".
He further noted that the Disarmament Commission was not performing as
well as it should. This year, it could not agree on any substantive
recommendations. The Commission was intended to be a deliberative
body, yet few countries found it useful enough to send experts from
their capitals or Geneva to its session. If the Commission was to be
maintained, it should engage in an honest debate on its working
methods. It had to provide an added value. He suggested having a
shorter session with a focus on one or two topics, clearly defined by
the General Assembly. The report of the Commission did not necessarily
have to be a negotiated document; a Chair’s summary should
suffice. "The UNDC is, after all, a deliberative body. We hope that
the next UNDC session will engage in profound self-evaluation," he
said.
It had been affirmed that profound reforms could only take place
within the framework of a possible fourth special session of the
General Assembly on disarmament, he said, adding that Norway would be
more than pleased if there had been consensus on the modalities and
format of such a conference, which could ignite a new momentum in
multilateralism. The General Assembly, given its universal nature, was
the fundamental body for advancing the cause of disarmament and non
proliferation. As a final point, he said he hoped that the Committee
could reduce the number of repetitive resolutions.
Thematic Debate Statement on Nuclear Weapons
MUNASSER SALEM NASSER LASLOOM ( Saudi Arabia) said that one of the
greatest dangers to man’s survival was the existence of nuclear
weapons, a complete violation of humanitarian law. There was a need to
consider the interlinked issues of disarmament and non-proliferation.
He said that the outcome document of the first special session of the
General Assembly devoted to disarmament had set forth the disarmament
priorities, for which the disarmament mechanism of the United Nations
was the ideal forum. But for the disarmament mechanism to prove itself
effective, it must be based on multilateralism. In addition, each
element of that mechanism must play its proper role through
cooperation.
Saudi Arabia had demonstrated its commitment in form and substance and
by adhering to international principles and committing to treaties in
the disarmament and security field, as well as by providing the
necessary information, as required, he said. In addressing disarmament
mechanisms and their importance at the United Nations, there was a
burning question that needed to be asked from the people of the Middle
East concerning peace and stability, namely, why Israel was the sole
obstacle to making the Middle East a nuclear-weapon-free zone. The
international community must provide a full answer to the question
asked by the people of the region. There should be no double-standard,
as that policy sent a wrong message to Israel, which continued to
delay and procrastinate and play the role of "the poor victim". Saudi
Arabia supported the right of all States to the peaceful use of
nuclear energy.