 |
| Ambassador Jarmo Sareva of Finland
Chairman, First Committee. Chronicle photo | The First Committee is an arena subject to a tug of war between two major concerns: national security and collective security. Diplomats come armed with words—commitments—that have the power to weaken a range of dangers: from atomic weapons to small arms (which kill in statistically alarming numbers); and from securing transport of nuclear waste across the high seas to keeping outer space free from high-tech weapons.
The push and pull between national interest and collective security was sometimes manifested in voting on resolutions. Continuing a voting pattern seen in past years, countries agreed to the non-proliferation and disarmament goals but differed on the ways to achieve them.
During the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly, a majority of States were concerned that collective security was becoming "elusive". First Committee Chairman Jarmo Sareva of Finland said that some countries were adopting unilateral methods for self-defence. As the Committee readied for work in October 2003, he noted that there had been a "crisis of confidence" in multilateralism, echoing Secretary-General Kofi Annan's words that in the 58-year history of the United Nations, it had "come to a fork in the road".
The word "nuclear", covering aspects such as proliferation and reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, elimination of nuclear weapons and an ending of nuclear arms race, figured in 14 of the 52 resolutions recommended by the First Committee. The officially declared and undeclared nuclear-weapon Powers, however, had not agreed on the basic non-proliferation regime for weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
An omnibus resolution, Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: a new agenda, first tabled in 1998 by the New Agenda Coalition, consisting of Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and Brazil, received 133 votes in favour, to 6 against (France, India, Israel, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States), with 38 abstentions. India and Israel also voted against a related text that asked countries outside the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to accept both an international legal commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons, as well as one to agree to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on all their nuclear activities. The NPT, adhered to by nearly 190 countries, is the most widely accepted non-proliferation treaty.
A similar pattern was noticed in a resolution A path to the total
elimination of nuclear weapons. The Assembly called on all States to maintain the highest possible standards of security, safe custody, effective control and physical protection of all materials related to such weapons, so that they did not fall into the hands of terrorists. The text, which was orally amended by Japan, on the challenges to the NPT and the need for full compliance received 164 votes to 2 (India, United States), with 14 abstentions. Explaining his negative vote, the representative of India said that the main legal instrument purported to achieve that objective, namely the NPT, seemed to have been ineffective. India, therefore, would take a path that went beyond that discriminatory Treaty. The United States' representative said that the draft had stressed the importance of the "urgent" signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As his country did not support the Treaty, it would not become a party to it. Ambassador Sareva told the UN Chronicle that "the more support you negotiate and the closer you are in coming to a consensus, the higher the value is in setting a global norm in legal, political, moral and ethical terms. Fault-lines remain."
 |
| UN photo |
Other delegations argued that the sluggish movement on nuclear disarmament had slowed down progress on issues besides WMD. Ambassador Vladimir Drobnjak of Croatia informed the Chronicle that flexibility and pragmatism were expected of all major players. "The bottom line is that we would like to have a more effective process, not a long discussion. Being a country that is not a key player in the field, Croatia would like to avoid the filibustering of the process."
Of the positive resolutions on nuclear matters, the Committee passed without a vote the resolution African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba). The text on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty received 173 votes, with one country opposing.
Even as the nuclear-weapon States talked about their commitment to get rid of these weapons, a Central Asian country set an example in modernity. "We have denied our nuclear heritage", Zhanat Shaimerdenov of Kazakhstan told the Chronicle. "We are trying to carry out a consistent policy. We were the initiators of an initiative of confidence-building measures in Asia. Sixteen States met in Almaty in 2002. We cannot force States to destroy their weapons right now, but we do whatever we can to reduce the possibility that they will be used."
The highest number of countries ever—174—voted in favour of the Prevention of an arms race in outer space, with the United States, Israel, Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands abstaining (see box above). For many countries, transnational crime and small arms was seen as a potent combination in disrupting peace in other countries. The Committee adopted without a vote the resolution Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them.
Though there is still no reliable data on deaths caused by small arms, the World Health Organization reported that in 52 high- and middle-income countries, with a combined population of just over 1,400 million, more than 115,000 people had died from firearm injuries in a one-year period in the mid-1990s. None of these countries had been experiencing a conflict while reporting these data.
Ambassador Stafford O. Neil of Jamaica told the Chronicle that there was a linkage between criminal activities and the availability of small arms, saying that Jamaica's concern had to do with transnational criminal activities. "We are interested in developing an international instrument to regulate small arms and light weapons for dealing with the illicit transfers", he said. "Where they have liberal regimes regarding the transfer and sale of weapons, we would try to persuade other countries."
Stefano Baldi of Italy, speaking for the European Union, said that "end-user certificates" for small arms was the key to restricting them to responsible hands. "It's all about brokering", he told the Chronicle. "You have companies that buy just to sell again; so that's what you're talking about, and you should know where all these goods end up." Chairman Sareva said that as opposed to WMD, he was "encouraged by some of the small, concrete steps that are being taken in the First Committee in the various treaty frameworks and arrangements" on small arms and light weapons.
Emphasizing the importance of early and full implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, the Committee recommended to the Assembly to convene a United Nations conference to review progress made in implementing it, to be held in New York for two weeks between June and July 2006, according to the resolution on illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.
The economic benefits of disarmament were also debated. The relationship between disarmament and development took three different turns in the last three years. In the 56th session of the General Assembly, the resolution was unanimously adopted; in the 57th, the United States cast the lone negative vote; and in the 58th, the text sponsored by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) received 177 votes, with the United States against, and Israel and France abstaining. The United States representative argued that disarmament and development were two distinct issues. But African States that supported the consensus resolution on African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone argued otherwise.
Cheikh Niang of Senegal told the Chronicle that even if the linkage between disarmament and development was not so obvious, "whenever we can achieve lower military spending, it will be a benefit for development. It is better to be in a world free of any military action or confrontation. We think that a world committed to disarmament is a world able to accomplish higher levels of development."
The Committee achieved a consensus on supporting the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. In 2002, the text had been downgraded to a procedural decision. Also adopted without a vote was the Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, as well as a resolution sponsored by NAM, India and France on Measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
In a new resolution, sponsored by the United States, titled Improving the effectiveness of the methods of work of the First Committee, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to compile and organize States' views on making the Committee more effective, in light of threats to world peace post-September 11. This had been a recurring theme, especially since the terrorist attacks in September 2001 against the United States. During this session, 52 texts recommended by the First Committee to the General Assembly were all adopted, 29 by a vote.
Chairman Sareva, during the initial meetings of the First Committee, told delegates that if "nobody outside the room paid attention to their statements, their work was in danger of becoming irrelevant". Efforts to streamline its work—clustering resolutions, shortening the duration of the general debate, among others, which is expected to commence in the next few years—should bring more attention to the critical nature of the Committee's work. "We are the only body discussing and acting on these important issues with universal membership", he told the Chronicle. "This would also allow for maximum participation from Geneva (the venue of the Conference on Disarmament) and also from the State capitals, and provide a meeting ground for disarmament experts", Ambassador Sareva concluded.
Arms Race in Outer Space
The last century saw the dawn of the space age and the rise of technology and social progress across nations. Weaponization of space was first discussed as part of the United Nations agenda in 1981 when the Conference on Disarmament, pursuant to the resolution on Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, was given the task of negotiating a treaty to regulate the military use of space. The Conference made some progress in drafting a treaty until disagreement between China and the United States in 1995 prevented consensus on the creation of the Ad Hoc Committee that negotiated the resolution. In the debate, the United States argued that the existing treaty regime was sufficient and there was no need to negotiate a Conference treaty since there was no threat of a space race.
In 2003, five Ambassadors from Algeria, Belgium, Chile, Sweden and Colombia sought to bridge the gaps between Member States of the Conference on Disarmament on the most contentious issue: prevention of an arms race in outer space and nuclear disarmament. The proposal called for the establishment of four ad hoc committees on negative security assurances (meaning protecting non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use by the nuclear-weapon States), nuclear disarmament, a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, and prevention of an arms race in outer space.
Since then, no consensus was able to be reached on these issues. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 20 January 2004 called on Conference member States to demonstrate the necessary political will to break the stalemate and make progress this year. "I am encouraged by the efforts of many Member States to review their policies concerning the priorities on the Conference agenda, and I hope that the countries will facilitate bridging remaining divergences and resuming the substantive work of the Conference in 2004", he said.
Chairman Jarmo Sareva of the First Committee told the Chronicle that the current political dynamics of the world were contributing to the impasse. "It is up to the Member States to jumpstart [negotiations]", he said, adding, "you need political decisions by those who have not been ready to resume negotiations".
— Namrita Talwar
|
|
|
Print