|
The First Committee Monitor
Week Four: October 25-29, 2004
In this issue:
- Introduction
- Nuclear Disarmament
- Disarmament Machinery
- Prevention of an Arms
Race in Outer Space
- Proliferation
- Disarmament and Development
- A New Agenda
- Regional Issues
- Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
- Negative Security Assurances
- Missiles
- Landmines
Introduction
The third part of the work of the First Committee is always the
most interesting. It seems that the entire staff of the DDA drops
in to watch the excitement, filling up the observer seats and relegating
some members of larger delegations to the gallery. Permanent Representatives,
too, whose counselors have been ably handling the previous two sections
(that of general and thematic debate, respectively), come to observe
the voting portion of the Committee’s work. Even past and
future Chairmen of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conferences
have been seen lurking near Conference Room 2, to check out if,
and how, the votes cast this year will differ from years past, and
to see how, and if, these votes will have implications for the NPT
Review Conference.
Some of the NGOs like the voting portion of the Committee for other
reasons as well. After spending three weeks listening to predictable
statements covering a slew of important disarmament issues, the
explanations of votes (EoVs) given before and after action is taken
provide civil society with a range of opinions, positions and qualms
to which we normally are not privy. We hear impassioned remarks
that shed a bit of light on the closed door informal negotiations,
and watch the glorious light shows splash up on the voting board
before us, illuminating alliances, blocs, or, at times, breakages
from old alliances on draft resolutions that matter much. (See New
Agenda report.)
The Committee, or rather, the diplomats that comprise it, also
display a bit of levity and human emotion not usually seen in the
grand conference rooms of the United Nations. Delegates feel free
to voice confusion over procedure, deliver extemporaneous jokes,
or express sincere frustration- be it with a draft resolution, its
co-sponsors, or the incessant chattering that takes place, even
while colleagues deliver their much-deliberated EoVs.
This week’s reports concentrate solely on the votes that
were taken and, when able to, the statements that explain the votes
cast by various States. We once again implore all delegations to
provide us with the texts of their EoVs, which not only enhance
the caliber of our reports, but also demonstrates a commitment to
the transparency, and enhanced working methods, of the Committee
and the United Nations as a whole.
The challenges facing our international security regime are complex
and interrelated in their nature, and States often find it difficult
to break out of their old modes of thinking and operating in order
to make substantive progress on these new threats and challenges.
The NGOs contributing to the Monitor, too, are at times
equally confined by age-worn compartmentalized ways of thinking.
Thus, some of the resolutions voted upon this week do not fit neatly
into the categories of themes that we etched out for this publication.
Resolutions such as L.2/Rev.1,
which addresses “Developments in the field of information
and telecommunications in the context of international security,”
are not discussed in the Monitor, despite their pertinence
and importance to global security. Draft resolution L.2, sponsored
by the Russian Federation, was adopted this week without a vote.
Likewise, draft resolution L.10
on the “Observance of environmental norms in the drafting
and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control”
is not discussed in any of the topics below. Malaysia’s draft
text was overwhelmingly adopted by a
165-1 vote, with 3 States abstaining. The United States, in
explanation of its solitary vote against the draft, noted that it
remains “unconvinced (that) this resolution is relevant to
the First Committee.” US Ambassador Jackie Sanders also noted
that “concern for the environment should not overburden”
already complex arms control and disarmament agreements. Furthermore,
the US continued, such complex agreements should not always be an
issue for the United Nations, and should be left, rather, to the
relevant States.
Another orphaned draft resolution,
L.11, on “Promotion of multilateralism in the area of
disarmament and nonproliferation” was also adopted
this week, with 109 votes cast in favor, 9 opposed, and 49 abstentions.
The EU, reiterating their
position last year, remained dissatisfied with the failure of L.11
to "give sufficient credit" to unilateral and bilateral
actions. Canada, speaking
on behalf Australia and New Zealand, voiced "problems with
the tone of parts of the resolution," and asserted that, "(m)ultilateralism
is indeed a core principle in our work. It is not, though, the core
principle, in the language of OP 1, implying that it is the only
fundamental means."
Lastly, draft resolution L.32
on the “role of science and technology in the context of international
security and disarmament”, was adopted
this week, with 101 votes in favor, 49 opposed, and 17 abstentions.
Other topics, while usually finding a home in the Monitor,
will not be featured in this week’s edition, such as First
Committee Reform, Chemical and Biological Weapons and Conventional
Weapons, as the votes on the relevant resolutions have not yet been
taken.
Governments are often criticized- both by civil society as well
as by elements within the government- for lingering too long in
a modus operandi that ceased to be relevant long ago. NGOs, which
ourselves should try harder at new and improved ways of thinking
and working, should be consistently advocating for a different approach
to international relations, especially when the current system is
as deadlocked and unproductive as it is. As a first step, perhaps
all of us should be employing, on a daily basis, the kind of humanity-
with all of its jokes, frustrations and human emotions- that we
saw this week at the Committee.
After all, as Albert Einstein, the father of nuclear fundamentals
once said, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything
save our mode of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled
catastrophe… We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking
we used when we created them.”
- Rhianna Tyson,
Reaching Critical Will
rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org
Nuclear Disarmament
Japan's resolution, "A path to the total elimination of nuclear
weapons" (L.23) was adopted
again this year without significant change to its levels of support.
151 States voted in favor,
with 2 votes against and 16 abstentions. The two negative votes
came again from the United States and India.
In its explanation of vote, the U.S. reiterated its opposition
to the CTBT, noting again that “it will not become a party
to it.” (See CTBT report.) The US further
explained its negative vote by reiterating its position that a fissile
material cutoff treaty cannot be effectively verified.
Stating in its explanation of vote (EoV) that, “even though
India very much agrees with basic” point of resolution, India’s
opposition stemmed from the “flawed means to pursue this objective”
of global disarmament, namely, the “discriminatory”
NPT. The reference contained within operative paragraph 1, which
calls on India to join the NPT as Non-Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS),
is, India maintained, “unrealistic and unacceptable.”
Abstaining again this year, Pakistan, in its EoV, cited the resolution's
inordinate emphasis on non-proliferation at the expense of disarmament,
as well as its heavy reliance on the NPT. Pakistan reiterated its
preference for addressing proliferation within the context of disarmament
and outside the auspices of NPT, to which they are not party.
The Member States of the New
Agenda Coalition also abstained again. Sweden, speaking on behalf
of the group, said the group “believes it is essential that
the commitments made at the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences
are upheld in their entirety and as they were originally agreed.”
However, Sweden acknowledged that the coalition knows and appreciates
its shared disarmament goals and objectives with Japan- a possible
foreshadowing of NNWS unity as they work towards the Review Conference.
While Germany voted in favor of the resolution, it similarly warned
against selective quoting, which detracts from resolution's overall
purpose.
India's resolution "Reducing nuclear danger" (L.30)
was also adopted this week
with 106 votes in favor, 46 votes against, and 16 abstentions. Repeating
patterns from previous years, opposition on this resolution came
primarily from NATO countries, with the Eastern European bloc representing
the bulk of abstentions. Among the resolution's provisions is a
request for "the five nuclear-weapon States" to take urgent
steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of
nuclear weapons. For a widely-supported civil society proposal,
including a draft resolution, that would apply to all nuclear-possessing
States, see "Appeal on the Operational Status of Nuclear Weapons"
at
http://lcnp.org/disarmament/policypractice/index.htm.
"Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court
of Justice on the Legality or Use of Nuclear Weapons" (L.39),
tabled by Malaysia also came to a vote this week. Operative paragraph
1 (OP1) underlines the unanimous conclusion of the ICJ "that
there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to
a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all
its aspects under strict and effective international control."
It was adopted in a separate vote with 156 States in favor. Three
States, Israel, Russia, and the U.S. voted against. Three former
Soviet States, Belarus, Latvia and Uzbekistan, along with Nuclear
Weapon States France and the U.K., abstained. The
resolution as a whole passed with 118 votes in favor, 28 against,
and with 18 abstentions.
A vote has been delayed on the US-Russia sponsored draft
resolution L.56 on "Bilateral strategic nuclear arms reductions
and the new strategic framework". The draft resolution frequently
highlights Russian and US arms reduction accomplishments, without
taking into consideration the oft-voiced perception that Nuclear
Weapon States are not fulfilling their disarmament commitments,
in particular with respect to verification and irreversibility.
- Michael Spies,
Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy
michael@lcnp.org
Disarmament Machinery
As expected, the First Committee unanimously adopted the draft
resolutions on the reports of the UN Disarmament Commission (UNDC)
and the Conference on Disarmament (CD) this week. Both draft resolutions
L.42 and L.27/Rev.1,
respectively, were adopted without vote, yet not without comment.
OP 5 of L.42, the operative paragraph which recommends two items
for discussion by the UNDC, remains blank, a distressing reflection
of the stalemate that gripped the 2004 UNDC session. “We simply
cannot go on adopting these hallow resolutions,” implored
Canada’s Ambassador
Meyer, “without an effort to come to grips with the underlying
problems.” He therefore suggested that, over the course of
the next year, the Commission should “devote its session to
an examination and discussion of how it can play a more effective
role and make the kind of contribution all would like to see.”
Failing to do so, he warned, “many countries will lose interest
in attending its meetings and its role and relevance will diminish.”
In an echo of Canada’s statement, the European
Union suggested that the Commission’s stalemate “shows
the relevance of discussing efforts” at reforming “the
work and working methods of the UNDC,” a suggestion also voiced
by the United States during the general debate. (See Disarmament
Machinery report, week 1).
Cuba, however, asserted that it “reject(s) the approach of
certain delegations” which advocate focusing on reforming
the Commission’s working methods. The real problem, Cuba maintained,
is the “lack of political will.”
Egypt, like the EU, “believes in the important role played
by UNDC,” but they “regret” the lack of “positive”
responses to the proposals from Non-Aligned, which sought to break
the procedural quagmire and delve into substantive issues this 2004
session.
The United States drew attention to their purposeful lack of participation
in the vote on L.42.
Draft resolution L.14, which will re-establish an open-ended working
group to discuss the possibilities of a fourth special session of
the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, was also adopted without
a vote.
- Rhianna Tyson,
Reaching Critical Will
rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org
Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer
Space
The First Committee adopted draft resolution L.36
on the “Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space” with
a vote of 167 to zero, with
2 abstentions from the United States and Israel. This result nearly
mirrors last year’s vote of 161 to zero, with 3 abstentions.
(Micronesia, the third abstention in 2003, did not participate in
the 2004 vote.)
While there were no explanations of votes (EoV) given for draft
resolution L.36, several States did refer to the need to prevent
the militarization of outer space in their EoVs on draft
resolution L.50, “Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic
Missile Proliferation.” (See Missiles
report.) As Egyptian
representative Alaa Isaa stated, “there exist lacunae
in the draft Code which, regrettably, have not been addressed in
the final document of which we are taking note... relat(ing) to
areas of peaceful uses”. Brazil and Cuba also noted the HCOC’s
lack of attention to peaceful uses of outer space as a major reason
for opposition to or lack of support for the Code and the draft
resolution now adopted by the Committee.
In their explanations of vote on the New Agenda Coalition's resolution,
L.22, China and Russia expressed
concern over that resolution's failure to emphasize the link between
disarmament and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. (See
A New Agenda report.)
- Renee O’Connor and Rhianna Tyson,
Reaching Critical Will
renee@reachingcriticalwill.org
rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org
Proliferation
This week, the First Committee took action on two different draft
resolutions which aim to further curb the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction: L.5, on
“National legislation on transfer of arms, military equipment
and dual use good and technology” and L.31,
“Measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of
mass destruction.”
Draft resolution L.5, sponsored by the Netherlands on behalf of
the EU, was adopted for its third consecutive year without a vote.
The text of this year's resolution was modified to include mention
of Security Council resolution 1540 and to urge states to implement
its directives. The sponsors also chose not to include
this topic on the provisional agenda for next year, citing their
flexibility on the possible biennualization or triennualization
of this resolution.
Draft resolution L.31, sponsored by Afghanistan, Bhutan, Colombia,
Fiji, France, India, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nepal and Sri Lanka, was
also adopted without a vote.
Two States took the floor in explanation of the vote on L.31. Pakistan
expressed support for the objectives of the resolution, but maintained
that the language could have been improved to reflect a more objective
view of reality. Pakistan also urged, as it did last year, for the
need to address the underlying causes of terrorism, namely “suppression,
injustice and deprivation.”
Brazil, speaking after the vote on L.31, noted the preambular reference
to Security Council Resolution 1540, which recognizes that resolution’s
focus on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Brazil drew attention to the fact that resolution 1540 specifically
addresses the threat of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists
and other non-State actors, and does not reflect, as Brazil
had proposed in its statement during the Security Council open
debate on April 22, 2003, “the delicate balance existing in
international instruments in this field, regarding obligations for
all States Parties on nonproliferation, disarmament and international
cooperation for peaceful purposes.”
Throughout both the General Debate of the General
Assembly as well as throughout the First
Committee session, many States maintained the position that
the total elimination of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
will always be the only real guarantee against the threat of possible
use of these weapons, including potential use by terrorists. In
this regard, in comments after the vote, Pakistan called attention
to the important work of the Organization for the Prevention of
Chemical Weapons and expressed concern over the slow pace of destruction
of chemical weapons by possessor States, and the dangers that such
huge stockpiles pose for falling into terrorist hands.
- Seema Jalan,
United Methodist United Nations Office
pnadjibu@gbgm-umc.org
and
Michael Spies,
Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy
michael@lcnp.org
Disarmament and Development
On Monday, October 25, Ambassador
Rivas reported to the First Committee on the work of the Group
of Governmental Experts on the Relationship between Disarmament
and Development (GGE). In the off-record discussion that followed,
one State suggested imposing a tax on arms in order to meet the
Millennium Development Goals; another State suggested consulting
the world’s Ministers of Finance on matters relating to disarmament
and development. Another noted that a better examination of the
costs of armament and disarmament needs to be done, suggesting that
while disarmament requires a greater initial investment, the long-run
savings are potentially tremendous. There was a question as to whether
disarmament leads to development directly; some noted that while
money diverted from weapons may not necessarily be funneled toward
development, disarmament enhances security, which in turn facilitates
development.
The Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.1/59/L.28
on the “Relationship between disarmament and development”,
sponsored by Malaysia on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement, with
a result of 165 States voting
in favor. The United States was the only State to vote against
the draft resolution; France and Israel abstained. The resolution
welcomes the report of the Group of Governmental Experts on the
relationship between disarmament and development, and requests the
Secretary General to strengthen the high-level Steering Group on
Disarmament and Development. This Steering Group was initially created
in May 1999 to revisit disarmament and development in light of the
various changes that have taken place in the international situation
since the 1987 International Conference on the Relationship between
Disarmament and Development.
The representative from the United
Kingdom offered an explanation of the UK’s affirmative
vote, stating that, “(w)e welcome the mainstreaming of disarmament
issues in development policy, particularly in the field of conventional
weapons, small arms and light weapons (SALW) and disarmament, demobilisation
and reintegration (DDR).” While the UK generally supports
the report of the GGE, they disagree with the finding that there
is little progress being made on nuclear disarmament. They stated
further that “the report does not give sufficient credit to
unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral actions in disarmament and
non-proliferation”.
The draft resolution encourages the international community “to
achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to make reference to
the contribution that disarmament could provide in meeting them
when it reviews its progress towards this purpose in 2005, as well
as to make greater efforts to integrate disarmament, humanitarian
and development activities.” The draft resolution also asks
the Secretary General to report on implementation at the 60th session
of the General Assembly, which will include disarmament and development
on its agenda.
- Susi Snyder,
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
wilpfun@igc.org
A New Agenda
The First Committee took action Thursday on the New Agenda Coalition's
resolution (L.22) "Accelerating
the implementation of disarmament commitments." The resolution
as a whole was adopted with
135 votes in favor, five votes against (France, Israel, Latvia,
U.K., U.S.) and 25 abstentions, mainly coming from NATO and former
Soviet States.
Recognizing the efforts of the New Agenda States to adopt a consensual
tone, seven NATO Member States, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Norway, Lichtenstein and Turkey broke ranks with their
alliance partners and joined Canada in voting for this year's resolution.
In addition, five other States which abstained or voted
no last year, Bhutan, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, Moldova,
and Switzerland voted in favor of the resolution. India shifted
its no vote to an abstention. Japan,
the lead sponsor of the other resolution focused on the implementation
of the 2000 NPT commitments, voted for the New Agenda resolution
for the first time in recent years, mentioning that the resolution
"offers effective approaches toward nuclear disarmament."
Operative Paragraph 2, calling for States to spare no efforts in
achieving universal adherence on the NPT and the early entry into
force of the CTBT, was adopted
separately with 153 votes in favor. France, India, Israel, and
the U.S. voted against the inclusion of this paragraph. Bhutan,
Mauritius, Monaco, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan abstained.
The drastically revised text of the resolution, utilizing consensus
language from the 2000 NPT Review Conference, enabled the NATO States
in particular to overcome pressure from the U.S. to continue abstaining.
Several States commended the authors on their new approach and on
their effort to achieve a positive atmosphere for consensus heading
into the 2005 NPT Review Conference.
Several States felt the text was too brief and failed to address
particular issues related to disarmament. China,
which voted in favor, expressed its reservations regarding the resolution's
failure to call for the "non-first use of nuclear weapons",
its failure to note the prevention of an arms race in outer space
(PAROS) as conducive to nuclear disarmament and that "nuclear
transparency is related to an international environment of peace,
stability and trust." Russia also stated that the shortened
text compromised an emphasis on the close link between strategic
weapons and PAROS.
France, speaking on behalf
of the U.S. and the U.K, noted the pragmatic approach taken
by the coalition in this year's text, but faulted the resolution
for not mentioning progress made in strategic arms reduction and
for not taking all NPT commitments into account. Russia also cited
the failure to note recent accomplishments as another reason for
its abstention.
- Michael Spies,
Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy
michael@lcnp.org
Regional Issues
Many of the draft resolutions dealing with matters of regional
security were adopted without a vote this week, including Uzbekistan’s
draft decision L.7 on a Central
Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ), L.19/Rev.1
on “Mongolia’s international security and nuclear-weapon-free
status” and L.47 on “Regional
Disarmament”.
Draft resolution L.35, on “Strengthening…
security and cooperation” in the Mediterranean region was
also adopted without a vote. The European
Union, all of whose Member States co-sponsored the draft, delivered
an explanation of vote (EoV) before the vote was taken. The EU noted
the Barcelona Process, a.k.a. the “Euromed” process,
launched in 1995, as “a major contribution to the establishment
and development of a global partnership between the European Union,
its member countries and the Mediterranean partners”. The
Euromed process, noted the EU, addresses issues of “nonproliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, disarmament, nuclear weapon-free
zones, verification, conventional weapons and confidence building
measures.”
Draft resolution L.46 on “Conventional
arms control at the regional and subregional levels” was
passed overwhelmingly through a recorded vote of 165 to 1, with
1 abstention. India, which cast the lone negative vote on the draft
resolution, viewed the “narrowly defined” text as unnecessary,
noting that the Disarmament Commission had already adopted norms
on the topic. India also rejected the call for the Conference on
Disarmament to discuss a framework for regional initiatives.
Draft resolution L.8 on the
“establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region
of the Middle East” was also adopted without a vote. Israel,
which has joined the consensus on this resolution for over twenty
years, nonetheless expressed “substantive and important reservations
regarding certain elements in the resolution” in its EoV.
Israel maintained its belief that “the nuclear issue as well
as all regional security issues, conventional and non-conventional,
should be dealt within the context of the peace process” and
“that the political realities in the Middle East mandate a
practical step-by-step approach,” including “modest
CBMs followed by the establishment of peaceful relations and reaching
reconciliation, and possibly, complemented by conventional and non-conventional
arms control measures.” Only then, Israel asserted, could
States work toward “more ambitious goals, such as establishing
a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.”
Israel, however, did not support draft
resolution L.37 on “The risk of nuclear proliferation
in the Middle East”, and was joined by the United States,
Micronesia and the Marshall Islands in opposing the draft.
Israel criticized the
draft resolution as “biased”, noting that it ignores
“the fact that the real risk of nuclear proliferation in the
Middle East emanates from countries that, despite being parties
to international treaties do not comply with their relevant international
obligations” and rather “focuses entirely on one country
that has never threatened its neighbors, nor abrogated its obligations
under any disarmament treaty.”
A separate vote was taken
on preambular paragraph 6, which recognizes that the Final Document
of the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT “undertook to make
determined efforts” toward the universalization of the treaty.
154 States voted in favor of PP6; 3 voted against, and four abstained.
The draft resolution, as a whole, was passed with 157 votes in
favor, 4 against and 8 abstentions.
- Rhianna Tyson,
Reaching Critical Will
rhianna@reachingcriticalwill.org
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
On the last day of the thematic debate on Monday, Ambassador
Rivas of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Governmental Group
of Experts on Disarmament and Development, noted with regret that
the Comprehensive nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has not yet entered
into force (EIF), a setback in the field of disarmament. (See Disarmament
and Development report.)
The draft resolution entitled “Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty” (L.25) will
be considered next week. However, some resolutions on nuclear disarmament
with either preambular or operative references to the CTBT were
adopted this week. Explanations of votes (EoVs) on these draft resolutions
also related frequently to the CTBT.
Draft resolution L. 8 on “Nuclear-weapon-free
zone in the region of the Middle East” was adopted unanimously.
(See Regional Issues report.) In its explanation
of vote, Israel did not
object to the need to eliminate nuclear tests in the Middle East,
as contained in operative paragraph 6.
The issue of the CTBT was mostly controversial in draft
resolution L. 23- “A path to the total elimination of
nuclear weapons”. Contrary to previous years of voting in
favor of the resolution, Iran abstained this year partly because,
they said, the CTBT verification regime was not yet technically
understandable and could not be further developed without the entry
into force of the CTBT. The representative of United States affirmed
that his country does not support the Treaty and will not become
party to it. Finally, Colombia reaffirmed its wish to ratify the
CTBT at the earliest stage possible, despite the legal and constitutional
difficulties it is still facing.
- Laure Abado,
NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security
disarmtimes@igc.org
Negative Security Assurances
Draft resolution L.44 on “effective”
security assurances “against the use or threat of use of nuclear
weapons”, was brought up
for vote on October 27. 109 voted in favor, none against, and
there were 61 abstentions. (Last year’s text garnered
98 votes in favor with 59 abstentions.)
Explaining its abstention, the Republic of Korea reaffirmed its
support for the extension of negative security assurances to those
Non-Nuclear Weapon States that are in full compliance with all their
international obligations, particularly those of the NPT. The Republic
of Korea abstained from this Pakistan-sponsored resolution because
it would offer negative security assurances to all non-nuclear weapon
states regardless of their adherence to international treaties.
Draft resolution L.26/Rev.1,
the only other draft resolution which deals with security assurances,
has not yet come to a vote. China, however, delivered an “omnibus”
explanation of vote pertaining to all nuclear weapons-related resolutions.
In this EoV, China listed security assurances as “indispensable”
to the prohibition and destruction of all nuclear weapons.
-Laura Humphrey,
Reaching Critical Will
laura@reachingcriticalwill.org
Missiles
Both draft resolutions on missiles were adopted on Tuesday, though
the debate surrounding their vote was the most contentious of the
week, revealing the tensions between two different and often opposing
frameworks for arms control and disarmament. One framework operates
on the rule consensus, within the United Nations and with a balance
between disarmament and non-proliferation. The second, increasingly
popular framework involves bi- and plurilateral negotiations with
selected parties, often outside the United Nations and often with
a greater degree of focus on non-proliferation. Proponents of the
latter framework view it as a tool to implement a series of incremental
steps toward disarmament, and as complementary to the multilateral
approach. Others, however, view this approach as discriminatory.
Iran introduced three amendments
to draft resolution L.50 on the Hague Code of Conduct against
Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC) on behalf of Egypt, Indonesia,
Malaysia and Pakistan. These amendments attempted to address criticisms
of the draft resolution and of the HCOC itself. The first amendment
would broaden the scope of preambular paragraph 7 by adding the
words “development and” before the word “proliferation”
and the phrase “in a comprehensive manner,” making the
paragraph read: “Mindful of the need to combat the development
and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means
of delivery in a comprehensive manner.” The amendment was
rejected with 21 in favor, 103 against and 8 abstentions.
The second amendment proposed to add the word “first”
before the word “practical” in the second line of the
first operative paragraph, to encourage further disarmament measures
to come. This amendment, which would recognize the HCOC as "a
first, practical step against the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery; " was also voted down,
with 17 in favor, 104 against, and 10 abstentions.
The third amendment proposed to replace the phrase “(e)ncourages
the exploration of” with the phrase “(e)ncourages the
United Nations to explore” in the fourth operative paragraph,
in an effort to bring missile control and disarmament measures into
the multilateral United Nations. This amendment, too, was voted
down, although it did obtain the most positive votes: 23 in favor,
103 against, and 6 abstentions.
Chile, the lead sponsor of the original draft resolution, argued
that the delicate conceptual balance contained in draft resolution
L.50 would be upset by the amendments, and asked the 104 co-sponsors
to act accordingly. Iran rebutted, noting that the language of the
second amendment was taken directly from the HCOC itself, and that
L.50 was originally formulated with the language contained in the
third amendment, but that the “United Nations” was taken
out of the resolution during the negotiation process.
L.50, in its original form was
adopted with 137 voting in favor,
2 against, and 16 abstentions. Iran and Egypt voted against,
with most of the Member States that voted for the amendments abstaining.
China was one of the few
who voted for the last amendment as well as the resolution as a
whole, explaining that, “China agrees with the non-proliferation
objective of the HCOC [and although they are not a member] will
continue the exchange of views with all sides…In this process,
the role of the United Nations should be fully utilized.”
Mexico, which cast one of the 16 abstention votes, argued that
commitments should be the product of a genuine negotiating process.
Other abstentions came from Algeria,
which expressed concern with the lack of attention to cruise missiles,
and from Indonesia, which remains concerned with the development
of ballistic missiles. India,
in its explanation of vote, said its abstention derived from its
belief “in arms control and disarmament measures that are
transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory” as opposed
to “exclusivist, ad-hoc and club-based approaches”.
Brazil said their abstention
was a result of the HCOC’s failure to “address Brazilian
expectations regarding development of technology toward the peaceful
use of space, particularly regarding programs of satellite launch
vehicles”. They also expressed the concern of many abstainers
that the negotiations were conducted without sufficient debate.
Egypt explained that
its “no” vote derived from its deeply held belief that
the UN is the correct forum in which to address missiles. Like others
opposing the resolution, it also noted the lack of attention to
the issue of cruise missiles in the HCOC and in the resolution.
Draft resolution L.6/Rev.1
was adopted with 98 in favor,
2 against and 60 abstentions, after the Committee Secretary
read aloud the Programme Budget Implication (PBI) of the draft resolution.
The US and Israel voted against the resolution.
The Netherlands, on behalf of the EU,
explained that it abstained on this resolution again this year because,
although they are very committed to the issue of missiles, “a
panel of experts would only be meaningful based on an agreed specific
mandate which ensured that added value could be offered”.
Cuba explained that it voted yes for L.6/Rev1 because the UN is
the appropriate forum for dealing with missiles, noting that the
Panel of Governmental Experts will pay attention to high-precision
cruise missiles and warheads, issues not addressed by the HCOC.
- Jennifer Nordstrom,
Global Action to Prevent War
jennifer@globalactionpw.org
Landmines
While many States recognize the inhumane nature of landmines, universalization
of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production
and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (the
Ottawa Convention) continues to be a subject of concern among a
significant number of States. As the Austrian
Ambassador, Gerhard Pfanzelter, emphasized in the thematic debate,
“(u)niversalization remains a challenge. There are still large
stockpiles of anti-personnel mines around the globe and very large
mined areas that need to be cleared.”
Kenya, the host
of the First Review Conference (Nov 29. - Dec. 1, 2004), expressed
their hope that the Summit will conclude an assessment of the suffering
caused by landmines since the establishment of the Convention, as
well an effective action-plan which would mobilize “the necessary
resources to help badly affected countries to clear mined areas
as well as assist landmine survivors.” Kenya also expects
Africa to demonstrate leadership in resolving the landmine problem.
Reflecting Kenya's remarks, the representatives of South
Africa and Nigeria
highlighted the adoption of the Common African Position on Anti-Personnel
Landmines in New York on September 23, 2004. Both countries are
State Parties to the Convention and view the First Review Conference
as not only an opportunity to evaluate the progress in the implementation
of the Articles of the Convention, but also as a chance to “chart
the course for complete eradication of the weapon by the Second
Review Conference in 2009,” as stated by Nigeria.
Speaking on behalf of the European
Union, Ambassador Chris Sanders noted the challenges in ensuring
sufficient financial resources to meet the guidelines of the Convention
and of achieving “universal adherence.” The representative
did, however, acknowledge the achievements made since the 1997 Ottawa
Convention, such as destruction of 37 Mio stockpiled mines, the
discontinuation of the official trade in landmines, and a significant
decrease in the number of States using landmines.
Ambassador Andreas D. Mavroyiannis (Cyprus) discussed the multiple
de-mining initiatives undertaken by his Government “as a matter
of principle and priority”, and in compliance with the Ottawa
Convention. Cyprus is cooperating with the UN Peacekeeping Force
in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and the European Union in its project on clearing
minefields within the Buffer Zone, which so far it has been pursuing
unilaterally. As a part of the process, the “Mine Action Centre”
has been established to provide technical assistance in de-mining.
The representative also mentioned the destruction of 4,000 stockpiled
anti-personnel mines in December of 2003.
The representative of Belarus,
Aleh Shloma, appealed to Member States, international agencies and
NGOs for “all kinds of technical, technological and financial
assistance” necessary to eliminate more than 4 million anti-personnel
mines on its territory. Belarus expressed its strong willingness
to cooperate with the United Nations in its effort to destroy mines,
and views the Ottawa Convention as a “powerful tool that gives
us an opportunity to achieve full elimination and full prohibition
of anti-personnel mines that have caused enormous human sufferings
on all continents.”
While sharing the humanitarian concerns raised by the use of landmines,
India and Israel
remain reluctant to agree to the total and complete ban on landmines,
citing security reasons. The representative of India, Honourable
Mr. Ravi Prakash Verma, emphasized that “(l)andmines continue
to play an important role in the defence of States that have long
land borders with difficult and inhospitable terrains.” It
is only with the availability of alternative “militarily effective,
non-lethal and cost effective” technologies that India would
support complete elimination of landmines.
Congo, the United States, Brazil (on behalf of the Southern
Common Market), Canada, Romania
and Australia shared their efforts to comply with the Ottawa Convention.
Norway reiterated
the challenges that need to be addressed at the Nairobi Summit:
universalization of the Convention, destruction of stockpiles, clearing
of the mines, and assistance to victims.
Ambassador Laxanajanthorn (Thailand), on behalf of 127 countries,
introduced draft resolution L.40/Rev.1
entitled “Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition
of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel
Mines and on Their Destruction.” L.40/Rev. 1 makes a few changes
and additions to the GA resolution 58/53
of 8 December 2003, which was passed
with 153 votes in favor. The changes to the resolution include
the merger of preambular paragraphs 6-10 of the resolution 58/53
into a single paragraph. The new resolution also highlights the
upcoming First Review Conference in Nairobi. The updated version
provides the latest number, 143, of States Parties to the Convention.
The new resolution also emphasizes the “need to integrate
mine action into international and national development programmes
and strategies.” Preambular paragraph 9 notes the "possible
partnership between the mine action community and the World Bank",
and welcomes the meeting between the President of the Fifth Meeting
of the States Parties and the President of the World Bank, held
on September 20. Operative paragraph 7 encourages all the States,
relevant NGOs, international organizations, etc. to attend and participate
in the First Review Conference in Nairobi.
The First Committee will vote on L.40/Rev. 1 on Monday, November
1.
In addition, the DPI/NGO briefing on November 11, 2004 will be
dedicated to the Ottawa Convention: Review Conference Preparation.
- Maria Karapetyan,
Franciscans International
m.karapetyan@franciscansinternational.org
777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008
| 
