|
First Committee
Monitor
Second Edition
19 October 2009
Download in PDF
| Subscribe
to the Monitor
In this edition:
Editorial:
Getting from rhetoric to reality
Ray Acheson | Reaching
Critical Will
The second week of First Committee saw the last of the general
debate, an exchange of views with high-level representatives
from various intergovernmental disarmament bodies, and thematic
debate on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Throughout it all, especially the thematic debate on nuclear
weapons, an increasing number of delegations highlighted the
mutually reinforcing relationship between disarmament and
non-proliferation, arguing for a balanced pursuit of both.
Several states pointed out that the existence of nuclear weapons
constitute a source of nuclear proliferation, arguing that
the attempt to focus exclusively on non-proliferation undermines
those very efforts. Mr.
Luvuyo Ndimeni of South Africa emphasised, “Continuous
and irreversible progress in nuclear disarmament and other
related arms control measures therefore remain fundamental
to the promotion of non-proliferation.”
Rather than accepting the argument of the nuclear powers
that their atomic weapons afford them and their allies security,
more countries are speaking out against the unacceptable risks
posed by their existence.
The US
delegation continued to maintain that states “acquired
nuclear weapons in order to promote what they saw as their
national security” arguing, “If they are to give
them up, they must be convinced that doing so will not harm
their security and that of their friends and allies.”
However, an increasing number of delegations are critiquing
the role and value assigned to nuclear weapons in domestic
security and international relations. Swiss
Ambassador Streuli said it is time to “reflect on
the legitimacy of nuclear weapons and of their roles in military
doctrines. The vision of a world free of nuclear weapons must
trigger a fundamental revision of nuclear thinking taking
global security into account.”
In this spirit, Japan’s
Ambassador Suda, reiterating his general debate statement,
emphasised “that possessing nuclear weapons per se should
not grant states any political advantages in international
politics.” Chile’s
Ambassador Labbé argued, “Nuclear disarmament
will be a reality when States which possess atomic weapons
relinquish an instrument of power.”
The nearly universal support for a nuclear weapon free world,
while refreshing and welcomed, still remains rhetorical. Some
governments, such as those highlighted above, are trying to
push the positive rhetoric forward toward concrete changes
in policies and actions.
To this end, more delegations than ever before have called
specifically for the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention
or relevant framework agreement. Some of the calls have been
made before, including those from the Indian
and Non-Aligned
Movement delegations.
Others have so far included China’s
delegation, which suggested the international community
should develop “a viable, long-term plan composed of
phased actions, including the conclusion of a convention on
the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons, so as to attain
the ultimate goal of complete and thorough nuclear disarmament
under effective international supervision.”
Cameroon’s
delegation called for the immediate commencement of negotiations
on a convention to prohibit nuclear weapons and Morocco’s
called for creation of subsidiary body in CD on nuclear disarmament
to study the question of nuclear disarmament and elaborate
a Convention on this theme. Austria’s delegation also
announced support for the idea of a global nuclear weapons
convention, while the Philippines’
delegation announced that it “supports the calls
for irreversible and complete elimination of nuclear weapons
under international supervision. It is prepared to examine
proposals for a phased process leading to the ultimate objective
of achieving total nuclear disarmament and to secure the agreements
under a nuclear convention.”
There have been several other suggestions for concrete action
over the course of debates so far, inter alia, full
transparency of nuclear weapon holdings, development, and
plans through mandatory reporting; IAEA safeguards and full
access by IAEA inspectors to all nuclear facilities in all
states; reducing the stockpiles of strategic and tactical
nuclear weapons and their delivery systems; reducing the role
of nuclear weapons in security doctrines; reducing the operational
status of remaining deployed nuclear weapon systems; refraining
from modernising nuclear aresenals or facilities; and developing
a legal framework prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons.
In addition, the Canadian
delegation has repeatedly proposed enhancing the institutional
process of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This proposal
is a good way to turn the call for a nuclear weapon free world
into reality by creating the structural and procedural basis
necessary for the integrity and viability of the principle
Treaty promoting both nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
We hope that support for these concrete steps will be demonstrated
through positive engagement with this year's First Committee
resolutions and through real policy changes at the national
and international levels.
Nuclear Disarmament
Jim Wurst | Middle
Powers Initiative
Nuclear disarmament issues opened the thematic debate in
the First Committee on Tuesday. As expected, US/Russian negotiations,
the upcoming NPT
Review Conference, and UN
Security Council Resolution 1887 dominated the discussions.
As was the case in the general debate, governments welcomed
the renewed optimism since the beginning of the year because
of the changes in position of the United States, an improving
US/Russian relationship, and renewed confidence in the role
of multilateral institutions. But other than references to
these current events, there was little indication that the
fundamentals of the debate as framed in the First Committee
have changed.
Despite an overall improvement in US/Russian relations on
arms control, the back-to-back statements by the two delegations
on 15 October highlighted the vast differences that remain.
Both countries ran down the list of nuclear weapons they had
dismantled or retired, and both spoke positively of having
a new strategic arms agreement to replace START by the end
of the year. The US
delegation said negotiators are engaged in “intensive
negotiations” on a treaty that “will enhance stability
and predictability in our two countries’ strategic relationship
while reducing deployed nuclear warheads.” There was
no mention of follow-up negotiations once this treaty is completed.
The Russian
delegation also highlighted the work towards “a
new full-format legally binding arrangement to replace the
START Treaty.” However, Mr. Viktor L. Vasiliev ran down
a list of conditions for continuing strategic cuts. In order
to strengthen “strategic stability” and to be
in “strict compliance with the principle of equal security
for all,” he outlined a number of measures “to
ensure sustainable development of the disarmament process”:
Russian-US dialogue must consider bringing in all other nuclear
weapon states – both those party to the NPT and outside
the regime; conventional arms must not be built up as nuclear
arms decrease; cuts in warheads and delivery vehicles must
be irreversible; anti-missile defenses “should be avoided;
no weaponization of outer space; and all states need to be
involved to “ensure a controlled limitation of conventional
weapons combined with parallel resolution of other international
problems.”
While many delegations welcomed the US/Russian engagement,
they also encouraged the nuclear weapon states to go further.
For example, the Australian
delegation said it wanted “deeper, faster, more
transparent and irreversible reductions in nuclear arsenals”
and called on all nuclear weapon states “both within
and outside the NPT to reduce the number of these weapons,
to reassess and limit the role of nuclear weapons in their
security policies and to reduce further the operational status
of their nuclear weapons.” Switzerland’s
Ambassador Streuli said, “We must now move from
the stage of encouraging statements to that of the realization
of concrete actions.” Norway’s
Ambassador Langeland considered the pending treaty “as
a first step towards a comprehensive disarmament process involving
all categories of nuclear weapons, and bringing in the other
nuclear weapon states.”
Speaking for the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM), the Indonesian delegation said, “Although
there have been positive signals and developments, the world
is still confronted by unresolved challenges.” While
“noting” the US/Russian negotiations, the NAM
stressed that “reductions in nuclear deployments and
in operational status cannot substitute for irreversible cuts
in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons.”
Sweden’s Ambassador Hellgren, speaking for the European
Union, called for “the inclusion of tactical nuclear
weapon, by those states which have them, in their general
arms control and disarmament processes, with a view to their
reduction and elimination.”
Security
Council Resolution 1887 on nuclear non-proliferation and
disarmament was generally welcomed again during thematic debate,
but that support usually carried with it a list of needed
steps to advance the goals laid out in the resolution. South
Africa’s delegate welcomed the resolution as a contribution
“to a new, more balanced approach” to non-proliferation
and disarmament but argued “that any presumption of
the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons will only lead
to increasing insecurity and a continuing arms race.”
All this was often linked to the possibility of success at
next year’s NPT
Review Conference. Canada’s
delegation, for example, was “encouraged by the
general momentum building towards the adoption of a substantive
consensual outcome document” at the Review Conference.
Australia’s
Ambassador Millar was a bit more specific, saying the
Conference “should issue some kind of blueprint for
action. With respect to [nuclear disarmament], this could
be something along the lines of the 2000 Review Conference’s
13 practical steps.” Chile’s
Ambassador Labbe took up the same theme, saying, “We
believe it is necessary to review the 13 practical steps for
nuclear disarmament … and to formulate, in the light
of the present realities and needs, a pragmatic agenda with
objective chances of success.”
The key draft resolutions dealing with nuclear disarmament
had not been issued by deadline. A review of those drafts
will be featured in next week’s report.
Nuclear Proliferation
Ray Acheson | Reaching
Critical Will
The debate on nuclear proliferation continued during the
final day of general debate and the thematic debate on nuclear
weapons. The European
Union continued taking a hard line on proliferation, reiterating
its proposals for non-proliferation to be pursued in the context
of the 2010
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.
Some of these include “resolute action in response to
proliferation crises, in particular in Iran and the DPRK,”
“determination of the consequences of a State Party’s
non-compliance with NPT non-proliferation obligations,”
and “adoption of national criminal sanctions against
acts of proliferation, including proliferation financing.”
Meanwhile, the Non-Aligned
Movement expressed its belief that nuclear non-proliferation
“should be approached through political and diplomatic
means, and that measures and initiatives on this issue should
be taken within the framework of international law, relevant
conventions, and the UN Charter.”
Several delegations, including that of Switzerland,
argued, “advances in nuclear disarmament lead to the
strengthening of the non-proliferation regime.” Morocco’s
delegation described the link between non-proliferation
and disarmament as “indissoluble”. The US
delegation said they are “two sides of the same
coin.”
However, France’s
delegation indicated that non-proliferation must come
before disarmament. French Ambassador Danon argued that the
“crises of proliferation are now the greatest threat
to international peace and security” and that their
resolution is necessary to create a safe international context
in order to pursue nuclear reductions. He called for the international
community be “united and resolute” and “rigorous
with those who violate international norms” of non-proliferation.
As in the first week, several delegations highlighted specific
cases of nuclear proliferation they find particularly concerning:
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)
The European
Union and Japanese
delegations again condemned the DPRK’s nuclear and missile
tests in the thematic debate on nuclear weapons, as undermining
to the stability of the Korean peninsula and representing
“a threat to international peace and security.”
Australia,
Canada,
the European
Union, Norway,
the Republic
of Korea, Switzerland,
and the United
States urged the DPRK to renounce its nuclear programme
and/or return to Six Party Talks. Several delegations, including
those of the European
Union, Japan,
and the Republic
of Korea, also urged the DPRK to comply with relevant
UN Security Council resolutions. The EU additionally called
on the DPRK to return to the NPT and IAEA safeguards and “not
to pursue any sensitive exports”. Further, it described
the DPRK’s
letter to the UN Security Council on 4 September 2009,
“which strives to challenge” resolution
1874, as containing “further provocations to the
international community.”
Australia’s
Ambassador Millar described the DPRK’s nuclear test
as “strikingly at odds with the renewed momentum on
nuclear disarmament. The US delegation said resolving both
the DPRK and Iranian challenges is “ a critical element
of the push to realize a world without nuclear weapons.”
The French
delegation said it will judge both the DPRK and Iran “by
acts rather than by intentions,” noting that it is “paying
careful attention” to specific results that it expects
to see by the end of the year.
In both its general
debate and thematic
debate statements, the DPRK delegation rejected the statements
of those who condemned their activities as “serious
provocations,” arguing that its nuclear tests have been
the result of US aggression and UN Security Council resolutions.
Iran
In its statement during the thematic debate on nuclear weapons,
the European
Union continued to emphasise that Iran has the responsibility
to restore international confidence about the nature of its
nuclear programme. It urged Iran “to follow up the meeting
in Geneva on 1 October with concrete measures, including giving
full transparency on the Qom project,” as did Australia’s
Ambassador Millar. Speaking for the Canadian
delegation, Mr. Jonathan Tan suggested that a negotiated
settlement, “may include reversible UNSC actions as
long as Iran remains in non-compliance with its international
obligations.” The Swiss
and Norwegian
ambassadors expressed hope the ongoing dialogue and consultations
will lead to a positive outcome.
The US
delegation, which did not comment on Iran last week, simply
noted that Iran “has an opportunity to restore international
confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program that
we hope the government will seize.”
Israel
During the final day of general debate, Lebanon
and Palestine
joined calls for the establishment of a nuclear weapon free
zone in the Middle East, noting that Israel is the only state
in the region that has not joined the NPT or placed its nuclear
facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
safeguards. Palestine’s representative argued that anything
less than the establishment of such a zone, “will prove
devastating and could trigger an arms race in the region.”
They also both welcomed the resolutions adopted by the IAEA
General Council regarding this topic. In its thematic debate
statement, the delegation
of Iran highlighted the need for Israel to accede to the
NPT.
NATO nuclear sharing
Iran’s
delegation highlighted the problem of challenge posed
by the stating of US nuclear weapons in European non-nuclear
weapon states. Mr. Reza Najafi argued that deploying these
weapons and training pilots of the host countries to handle
and deliver the bombs “contravene both the letter and
spirit of the NPT,” noting that this has promoted parliamentarians
and others in those countries to request their withdrawal.
Pakistan’s
Ambassador Akram criticised the double-standard employed
by states that offer prescriptions for others regarding non-proliferation
but are not themselves “prepared to give up their nuclear
security umbrellas nor prohibit the stationing of nuclear
weapons on their territories.”
Resolutions on proliferation
So far the only resolution on proliferation available is the
Arab Group’s annual resolution, entitled “The
threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”
(A/C.1/64/L.4)
The resolution, which deals exclusively with Israel, has received
some vocal opposition in recent years for failing to address
the full scope of proliferation issues in the region. In 2008,
the General Assembly adopted the Arab Group’s text as
resolution
63/84, with 169 states voting in favour, 5 against (Israel
and the United States, accompanied by the Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, and Palau), and 6 abstentions. The 2009 version
remains unchanged from previous years.
International
Day for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons
Ray Acheson | Reaching
Critical Will
The final
declaration of the recent UN
Department of Public Information (DPI)-Non-Governmental Organization
(NGO) Conference in Mexico City declared 27 October as
the annual International Day for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons.
This call was endorsed by the more than 1000 civil society
representatives at the conference and by countless organisations
since then. NGOs hope that this Day, which would be held during
Disarmament Week, will afford governments, the United Nations,
and civil society the opportunity to promote, highlight, and
advance the abolition of nuclear weapons.
The government
of Kazakhstan has also proposed the establishment of an
International Day for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons. As
home to the Semipalatinsk test site, Kazakhstan knows too
well the perils of nuclear weaponry. Kazakhstan was a leader
in the creation of the Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone
treaty, having made the unilateral decision to renounce the
arsenal it possessed as a result of the dissolution of the
USSR.
In First Committee, Kazakshtan has tabled resolution A/C.1/64/L.14
entitled, “International Day for a World Free of Nuclear
Weapons,” calling for the establishment of this Day
on 29 August. The Day would mark the date of its renunciation
of nuclear weapons. While welcoming Kazakhstan’s initiative,
many civil society organisations have noted that in August,
schools and parliaments are not in session and the UN and
other intergovernmental and civil society organisations are
working at reduced capacity. These groups argue that in October,
the Day would have the best opportunities to engage in educational
and lobbying activities at schools, universities, parliaments,
and other legislative bodies and to engage with prominent
civil society advocates, government diplomats, and UN personnel.
Support for 27 October as the International Day for a World
Free of Nuclear Weapons does not negate our collective responsibility
to officially recognize Kazakhstan for its noble efforts.
A win-win situation, whereby Kazakhstan receives the recognition
it deserves, while ensuring the most effective International
Day for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons, is possible. We encourage
delegations to the First Committee to work with Kazakhstan
to promote a date during Disarmament Week for this important
Day.
Operational
Status of Nuclear Weapon Systems
Lori Sims | Global
Action to Prevent War
During the thematic debate on nuclear weapons, the sponsors
of the First Committee resolution on decreasing the operational
readiness of nuclear weapon systems had the opportunity to
publicly explain their decision to not table the resolution
this year.
New
Zealand Ambassador Dell Higgie said the decision, “reflects
our recognition of the very positive momentum that exists
currently and the genuine willingness of many states to explore
concrete steps to achieve the ‘Prague vision’.”
Ambassador
Labbe of Chile said that this decision will contribute
to a better overall outcome and will further constructive
engagement with nuclear weapons states.
The Swiss
delegation explained that the sponsors are are also conscious
that nuclear positions are currently being reviewed in several
countries, which “correspond fully to the call in the
resolution for further practical steps to be taken to decrease
the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems.”
Ambassador Streuli elaborated that their decision to not table
the resolution will help “facilitate these review processes
and to find a long-term solution to this complex issue.”
He emphasised that the resolution’s sponsors would continue
to engage the nuclear weapon states toward concrete progress
on the objective of the resolution.
The resolution, sponsored by the governments of Chile, New
Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden, Switzerland (joined by Malaysia
in 2008) acknowledges and welcomes all steps that have been
taken to reduce the alert status of nuclear weapon systems
and calls on all states possessing nuclear weapons to take
further such steps to decrease their operational readiness.
It was adopted in the General Assembly as 62/36
(2007) and 63/41
(2008) and only France, the United Kingdom, and the United
States voted against it both years.
The delegations from Chile and Switzerland also hosted two
operational status side events. At the Chilean-sponsored event
held on 14 October, speakers highlighted the importance of
decreasing operational status by focusing on the dangers of
unauthorized or accidental use of nuclear weapons, the catastrophic
effects of nuclear war on the climate and agriculture, and
policy suggestions for decreasing alert status.
The EastWest Institute co-sponsored the Swiss event on 15
October, which took as its starting point, “Reframing
Nuclear De-Alert,” a report on topics explored at
a conference held earlier this year in Switzerland.
The report, supported by the Swiss and New Zealand governments
and prepared by the EastWest Institute, addresses the current
operational status of US and Russian arsenals, the relationship
between de-alerting and disarmament, and areas of consensus
around decreasing operational readiness. W. Pal Sidu from
the EastWest Institute outlined the report’s recommendations,
including: fostering dialogue on this subject between the
United States and Russia; bringing de-alerting back into the
arms control dialogue generally; operationalising the US/Russian
Joint Data Exchange Centre; strengthening nuclear systems
against accidental or unauthorized use, bringing weapons designers
into the discussion so that weapons are not designed explicitly
for high-alert status; multilateralise the Joint Data Exchange
Centre; and revisit the premise of deterrence.
One of the panelists, General (ret.) Eugene Habiger, former
Commander in Chief of United States Strategic Command, strongly
supported de-alerting, and said that it is feasible from a
military point of view; what is required is a political decision.
Sergey Rogov, Director of the USA and Canada Institute of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, highlighted the moral dimension
of the issue, noting that those who maintain nuclear weapons
on high-alert status pretend they are to be used for killing
weapons, not people. He welcomed the decision to postpone
the operational status resolution in First Committee for one
year, saying the international community is in a “race
against time” to see tangible progress on de-alerting.
John Burroughs of the Lawyers
Committee on Nuclear Policy contributed to this article.
Fissile
Materials
Ray Acheson | Reaching
Critical Will
During the final day of general debate and the thematic debate
on nuclear weapons, the delegations of Canada,
the European
Union, Japan,
Lebanon,
MERCOSUR
and Associated States, Mexico,
Netherlands,
Norway,
the Republic
of Korea, Slovenia,
and Switzerland
welcomed the adoption of a programme
of work in the Conference
on Disarmament (CD) that includes a mandate for starting
negotiations on a fissile
materials cut-off treaty (FMCT). Swiss
Ambassador Streuli lamented, however, that the international
community has “subsequently had to lower [its] expectations,”
since this programme was not implemented by the end of the
CD’s 2009 session.
Australian
Ambassador Millar also criticised the CD’s failure
to implement its own programme of work. She blamed “institutional
inertia and, more significantly, a calculation by a very few
that stopping the production of fissile materials for nuclear
weapons may not be in their security interests.” Ambassador
Millar noted that if this is the case, “such a calculation
would seem to run counter to current international trends
and would be deeply worrying.” She advocated for “engagement
at political levels outside the CD to convince hold-out states
that stopping the production of fissile materials for nuclear
weapons enhances the security of all.”
The Australian
and New
Zealand ambassadors both announced that their delegations
will co-sponsor the FMCT resolution this year at First Committee
and urged all states to “support a strong text.”
Slovenia’s
Ambassador Stiglic welcomed the resolution tabled by Canada,
urging states to adopt it without a vote.
Ambassador
Duncan of the United Kingdom acknowledged that some states
have concerns about negotiating an FMCT but argued, “these
are concerns that are better addressed transparently at a
negotiating table, rather than being plunged into the deep
freeze.” The Russian delegation also urged the commencement
of FMCT negotiations at the CD, saying, “We believe
that all required conditions are there.”
Mexico’s
Ambassador Macedo, noting that his delegation thinks existing
stocks should also be included in FMCT negotiations, emphasised
that controversial points will be dealt with as the negotiations
progress. He encouraged negotiations to commence with a daring
and constructive spirit and urged the “reluctant ones”
to come to the table.
Also advocating for the inclusion of existing stocks in FMCT
negotiations, Pakistan’s
Ambassador Akram argued, that a “cut-off in future
production of fissile materials alone will simply freeze and
formalize the existing asymmetries in its stock-piles”
and “would neither further the cause of nuclear disarmament
nor the objective of international and regional stability.”
He also argued that for those with large stockpiles, negotiating
such a treaty would be “cost free”. “In
truth,” he said, “Treaties on banning certain
types of weapons, test bans or moratoria on fissile material
production have only been negotiated and agreed by certain
states once these weapon systems have lost their relevance
for these countries or when their national reviews lead to
certainty regarding the sufficiency and reliability of existing
arsenals for future defence needs.”
Meanwhile, India’s
Ambassador Rao simply reiterated, “As a nuclear
weapon state and as a responsible member of the world community,
India is committed to participating constructively in the
FMCT negotiations in the CD.”
The European
Union encouraged the international community to promote
the commencement and the “early completion” of
negotiations on a fissile materials treaty. Pending the entry
into force of such a treaty, the EU called on all relevant
states “to declare and uphold an immediate moratorium
on the production of fissile materials” for weapons
purposes and to “dismantle their facilities dedicated
to the production” of such materials. France’s
Ambassador Danon also called for fissile material production
moratoria to be implemented by each country involved as quickly
as possible. Norway’s
Ambassador Langeland called for preserving and strengthening
existing moratoria on production of fissile materials for
weapons purposes.
The Inter-Parliamentary
Union announced that in April 2009 it adopted a Parliamentary
Resolution that serves as a call for action by parliamentarians
around the world on a number of fronts, including supporting
the commencement of negotiations on a fissile materials treaty.
Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty
Christian Ciobanu | NGO
Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security
With renewed commitments from the United States toward ratifying
the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the First Committee witnessed
new optimism from numerous delegations on its entry into force
during the thematic debate on nuclear weapons.
On 15 October, the US
delegation reaffirmed its intention to work towards ratifying
the treaty. Delegations from Australia,
the European
Union, Japan,
MERCOSUR
and Associated States, Switzerland,
the United
Kingdom, and Zimbabwe
urged the remaining non-ratifiers of Annex II of the CTBT
to also begin the process of ratifying the treaty.
The Executive
Secretary of the Preparatory
Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
(CTBTO) expressed his view that the recent Conference
on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT was a
momentous occasion. Tibor Toth noted that “more than
110 countries attended it and 40 countries were represented
at the Ministerial level.” He added that the First Committee
has a special responsibility in facilitating dialogue among
UN members to implement the CTBT.
Delegates from MERCOSUR,
the Non-Aligned
Movement, Trinidad
and Tobago, and New
Zealand described the CTBT as part of the foundation for
nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. MERCOSUR’s
representative said that the CTBT will “help to contain
vertical and horizontal proliferation.”
To further emphasize the promising prospects of the CTBT,
several delegations highlighted specific efforts towards ratifying
the CTBT. The Inter-Parliamentary
Union stated that delegations from Costa Rica and Austria
“are accelerating the ratification process in Latin
America and the Caribbean.” Delegates from MERCOSUR,
Canada,
and Zambia
welcomed the decision of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Mozambique, Malawi, Lebanon, and Trinidad and Tobago to ratify
the CTBT. The delegation
of Australia congratulated China and Indonesia for renewing
their support on ratifying the CTBT in their countries.
The European
Union and the Inter-Parliamentary
Union announced that they will continue to exert pressure
onto the nine Annex II states that have not ratified the Treaty
and to explore possible avenues with their parliamentary members
to ratify the Treaty.
The delegation
of Australia announced that it will sponsor the annual
CTBT draft resolution.
Nuclear Weapon
Free Zones
Christian Ciobanu | NGO
Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security
Ashe Brooks-Cook | Global
Security Institute
During the First Committee’s general debate and thematic
debate on nuclear weapons, numerous delegates continued to
discuss nuclear
weapon free zones (NWFZs) within the context of nuclear
disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, and regional security.
Several delegations also touched upon the recent entry into
force of two NWFZs in Africa and Central Asia. Other delegates
argued that the international community must implement the
NWFZ in South East Asia and help foster the development of
one the Middle East. A few delegates mentioned the importance
of the Second Conference of State Parties and Signatories
to NWFZ treaties to explain that NWFZs are central in the
international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
Representatives from several African delegations, including
those of Cameroon,
Tunisia,
and Zimbabwe,
stressed the importance of the Pelindaba Treaty in securing
and strengthening regional peace. They also urged other relevant
nuclear weapon states that have yet to ratify the Annexes
to the Treaty to do so. Several other delegations welcomed
the Treaty’s entry into force.
Proclaiming the significance of the recently established
Central Asian NWFZ, Kazakhstan’s
ambassador announced that the first consultative meetings
of state parties to the Semipalatinsk Treaty was scheduled
to take place on 15 October in Turkmenistan. She further explained
that the recently created Central Asian NWFZ would provide
both regional and negative security assurances as long as
the nuclear weapon states support the NWFZ. The delegations
of Kazakhstan,
Zimbabwe,
Cameroon,
and Thailand
expressed their support of the Central Asian NWFZ.
As the Chair of the South East Asian Nuclear Weapon Free
Zone (SEANWFZ) Commission, Thailand’s
delegation affirmed its support of a NWFZ in South East
Asia. It also informed the First Committee that it will table
its traditional resolution on the SEANWFZ at the current session.
The delegation of MERCOSUR
and Associated States expressed its support of Mongolia’s
status as a nuclear free weapons state.
Asserting the importance of regional security in the Middle
East, the delegation
of Palestine expressed its concerns that Israel’s
reluctance to support a NWFZ in the Middle East could create
a nuclear arms race in the region. In addition, the Non-Aligned
Movement urged that the UN must enforce Security
Council Resolution 487 and paragraph 14 of Security
Council Resolution 687 to create a NWFZ in the Middle
East. It further demanded Israel “accede to the NPT
and to place promptly all of its nuclear facilities under
the comprehensive IAEA safeguards,” pending the implementation
of a NWFZ in the Middle East. The representative of the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya expressed his dismay that UN
Security Council Resolution 1887 did not address the creation
of a NWFZ in the Middle East.
The Russian
delegation informed delegates that it is willing to engage
in discussions with relevant UN member states to establish
a NWFZ in the Middle East, as it has previously mentioned
in the context of the NPT. Delegates from Zimbabwe,
Lebanon,
Venezuela,
MERCOSUR
and Associated States, Japan,
and New
Zealand proclaimed their support for the creation of a
NWFZ in the Middle East.
As in previous years, Egypt submitted its annual draft resolution
entitled, “Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone
in the region of the Middle East,” (A/C.1/64/L.3).
The resolution proposes the establishment of a NWFZ in the
Middle East, calling on all states in the region to: adhere
to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all
nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) safeguards; declare their support for establishing
a NWFZ; and not develop, test, produce, acquire, or station
nuclear weapons on their territories. The text remains unchanged
from last year’s resolution, which was adopted without
a vote.
The Chair of the NWFZ Conference, Ambassador
Labbe of Chile, announced that the Second Conference of
State Parties to NWFZs in 2010 would occur one day before
the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The delegations
of MERCOSUR,
New
Zealand, Thailand,
and Kazakhstan
proclaimed their support for the conference.
Negative Security
Assurances
Tal Elmatad | Global
Security Institute
The call for the creation of legally-binding, universal,
and unconditional negative
security assurances (NSAs) continued during the thematic
debate on nuclear weapons. The delegation
of Norway expressed the sentiments of many in the First
Committee, saying that is is hopeful to see progress on the
matter. The representative
of Zimbabwe not only called for negotiations regarding
NSAs, but also described NSAs as a crucial part of the NPT
regime. The European
Union agreed with this sentiment, noting that NSAs act
as incentive for nations to forgo weapons of mass destruction.
Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned
Movement, the representative of Indonesia recalled the
establishment of a 1998 Ad Hoc Committee in the Conference
on Disarmament to address NSAs and reiterated its belief in
the need for unconditional security assurances to all non-nuclear
weapons states. This unconditional nature of NSAs was further
stressed by the United Arab Emirates, and by the delegations
of Tunisia
and South
Africa, who emphasized that non-nuclear weapon states
have a right to NSAs. Mr. Luvuyo Ndimeni of South Africa went
on to say, “NSAs enhance strategic ability, facilitate
the process of the elimination of nuclear weapons, and contribute
to international confidence and security.” Following
suit, Cuba
argued that nuclear weapon states should abandon policies
of first use as well as grant NSAs to all non-nuclear weapon
states.
As it did during the general debate, Kazakhstan’s
delegation expressed hope that a Central Asian NWFZ would
lead to NSAs between it and the nuclear powers. The delegation
of Thailand called for substantive discussions on NSAs
as a means to achieving progress on the issue. The Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea argued that threats of
the use of nuclear weapons are illegitimate.
Nuclear
Fuel Cycle
Joel S. Van Wagenen | Reaching
Critical Will
During the thematic debate on nuclear weapons, the European
Union indicated that it continues to support multilateral
approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle and stated that it had
pledged 25 million euro toward the establishment of a nuclear
fuel bank under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
auspices.
At the end of 2008, the European Union announced its financial
support for the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s initiative
to establish a fuel bank. This commitment brought the proposal
closer to fruition as it neared the 100 million dollar mark,
finally met in March of 2009 with a Kuwaiti pledge of financial
support. In his statement to First Committee on behalf of
the EU, Ambassador Hellgren of Sweden indicated that the EU
contribution would be fulfilled upon the approval of the conditions
and modalities by the IAEA Board of Governors. The Board discussed
the matter of fuel assurances at its June meeting, but decline
to take any action amid continuing concerns from developing
states on the legal, political, technical, and economic implications
of multilateral arrangements.
The Russian
delegation also reported last week on the latest status
of the International Uranium Enrichment Plant at Angarsk.
The Russian government, in response to the IAEA Director-General’s
initiative and at its own expense, had offered to establish
a reserve of low-enriched uranium at the site. Russia expressed
the intension to continuing promoting this initiative in the
IAEA as well as at the NPT Review Conference in 2010.
Developing states continued to voice their concerns. South
Africa’s delegation stressed, “what is required
is a non-discriminatory approach that would assure a reliable
supply of nuclear fuel, whilst fully respecting the choices
of States and protecting their inalienable right to pursue
peaceful nuclear activites, consistent with their non-proliferation
obligations.” Other states, including many of those
of the Non-Aligned
Movement, cautioned each country’s fuel cycle and
energy policies should be respected and should not face “undue
restrictions”.
Missiles
and Anti-Missile Systems
Alicia Godsberg | Federation
of American Scientists
On the last day of general debate in the First Committee,
the delegations of Palestine,
Lebanon,
the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and Pakistan
mentioned missile and anti-missile systems. Speaking for Palestine,
Mr. Ammar Hijazi stated that disarmament efforts need to be
undertaken in a manner that upholds the principles of international
humanitarian law. In this context, he argued, the use of conventional
weapons that have “indiscriminate and excessive effects,”
including flachette missiles, must be addressed. Lebanon’s
representative briefly mentioned the issue of missiles,
indicating it is in the process of adopting a resolution that
will permit the country to join the Hague
Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC).
Ambassador
Sin Son Ho of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
took issue with the international criticism aimed at his country
for its satellite launch earlier this year. Ambassador Sin
said the DPRK’s satellite launch was in fact conducted
in accordance with international procedures, and the United
Nations Security Council was “being forced by the United
States” to bring the DPRK’s peaceful satellite
launch to the Council as an issue, claiming it to be a threat
to peace and security in the region. Addressing the issue
of anti-satellite systems, he argued that the current nuclear
arms race and the modernization of nuclear weapons makes a
preemptive nuclear strike possible when combined with “the
worldwide missile defense system on the part of the superpower.”
Ambassador
Zamir Akram of Pakistan expressed his country’s
concern over the growing strategic imbalance in South Asia,
including the recent introduction into the region of nuclear
submarines and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
During the thematic debates on nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction, some delegations spoke about
missiles.
Swedish Ambassador Magnus Hellgren, speaking on behalf of
the European
Union (EU) during the debate on nuclear weapons, promoted
the start of consultations on a multilateral treaty banning
short- and intermediate-range ground-to-ground missiles. The
EU strongly condemned the DPRK’s launch of a long-range
missile in April 2009, saying that the launch constituted
a clear breach of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1695 (2006). The EU argued that this
launch, along with the explosion of a nuclear device by the
DPRK in May 2009, represents a threat to international peace
and security, and strongly urged the DPRK to refrain from
any launch using ballistic missile technology. As for Iran,
the EU stated simply that the Iranian nuclear and ballistic
missile activities constitute a substantial threat to regional
and international security.
During its statement on other weapons of mass destruction,
the EU repeated its concern over the risks caused by the proliferation
of missiles that could deliver WMD, including “ballistic
missiles of increasingly great range and sophisticated technologies.”
Ambassador Hellgren reiterated that the HCOC, along with the
Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR), represent the best tools
to deal with the problem of missile proliferation. The EU
called for the universalization of the HCOC and for all subscribing
states to uphold all the provisions of the HCOC, including
pre-launch notifications. Ambassador Hellgren noted as encouraging
both the positive statements made regarding the full implementation
of the HCOC at the G-8 Summit in Italy earlier this year and
the positive deliberations held in June 2009 by Presidents
Obama and Medvedev on the objective of engaging in enhanced
data sharing on ballistic missile launches through the creation
of a Joint Data Collection Centre located in Moscow.
The Indonesian delegation, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM), stated that the NAM continues to be concerned
over the implications of the development and deployment of
anti-ballistic missile defense systems, which negatively impact
the promotion of disarmament and the strengthening of international
security. NAM expressed concern that national missile defense
systems could trigger arms races and contribute to the development
of advanced missile systems. NAM singled out the abrogation
of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as creating new challenges
to strategic stability and the prevention of an arms race
in outer space.
The US
and the Russian
delegations both discussed their undertakings regarding missiles.
For the United States, this involved retiring over 1,000 strategic
ballistic missiles, including 96 Trident SLBMs removed from
strategic service. Mr. Viktor L. Vasiliev, speaking for the
Russian Federation, pointed out that the implementation of
the Intermediate
Range Nuclear Forces Treaty has allowed Russia to destroy
1,846 ballistic and land-based cruise missiles (along with
their 825 launchers) with a range of 500–5,500 km. He
stated that by 2009 they had exceeded START I strategic delivery
and warhead limits and eliminated over 1,500 ICBM and SLBM
launchers as well as over 3,000 ICBMs and SLBMs. As for the
ongoing negotiations for a follow-on treaty to START I, Mr.
Vasiliev said that Russia wishes to “substantially lower
... the number of strategic delivery vehicles—ICBM,
SLBM, and heavy bombers.” In discussing the path toward
zero nuclear weapons, he emphasized that unilateral steps
to build up strategic anti-missile defense systems should
be avoided, as strategic defensive and offensive arms are
“intrinsically linked.”
Several other delegations discussed missile-related issues.
France’s
Ambassador Eric Danon restated the EU’s call for
the start of consultations for the negotiation of a treaty
banning ground-to-ground missiles of short- and intermediate-ranges.
Norway’s
Ambassador Langeland mentioned that Norway firmly supports
the HCOC. Turkey’s
delegation stated that proliferation of the means of delivery
of weapons of mass destruction needs to be addressed by the
international community, and expressed its concern over the
increasing range and accuracy of ballistic missiles. It also
said that Turkey considers the HCOC a practical step toward
an international legal framework on the issue of missiles.
Biological
and Chemical Weapons
Ann Lakhdhir and William True | NGO
Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security
Biological Weapons
On Friday, 16 October, the Hungarian delegation introduced
a draft resolution on the Biological
and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), A/C.1/64/L.15.
The resolution calls on all states to join the Convention
and urges all states parties to work closely with the Convention’s
Implementation Support Unit (ISU). It also requests the UN
Secretary-General to continue to render the necessary assistance
and provide such services as may be required by the BTWC Review
Conferences.
During the thematic debate on other weapons of mass destruction,
the European
Union delegation explained that it has adopted a new Joint
Action in support of the implementation and universalization
of the BTWC. The EU will continue to actively contribute to
the current intercessional process, noting that the ISU plays
an important role. It also called upon all states to submit
their annual confidence-building measures.
Ambassador
Marius Grinius of Canada, the Chair of the BTWC meetings
in 2009, spoke about the August meeting that had 500 participants
from 100 countries and 20 experts from 10 countries. There
were four themes: the need for sustainability, an integrated
approach, coordinated assistance, and identification of regional
needs. From 7–11 December there will be a meeting of
States Parties to the BTWC in Geneva. He said there needs
to be an action-based outcome, enhancing the participation
in confidence-building measures.
Norway’s Ambassader Langeland expressed satisfaction
with the implementation of the work program adopted by the
BTWC Review Conference in 2006. In June 2008, Norway and Indonesia,
with the cooperation of the ISU, organized a regional workshop
on biological issues in Jakarta. Ambassador Langeland said
that the lead-up to the 2011 Review Conference provides an
opportunity to deliberate on ways to further strengthen the
BTWC, such as measures to verify compliance with the Convention.
The Non-Aligned
Movement emphasized the need for a legally-binding, effective,
and verifiable BTWC, implemented in a comprehensive manner.
The Cuban and Russian delegations also called for a verification
mechanism for the Convention.
Chemical Weapons
The Polish delegation introduced a draft resolution on the
Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC) (not yet circulated as an official
document). Poland has been the sponsor of this resolution
for many years and has consulted around 50 countries on its
substance. The Polish delegation asserted that the irreversible
destruction of chemical weapons, their non-proliferation,
protection for states parties, and provisions for the peaceful
uses of biological materials are goals of the Convention.
Ambassador
Rogelio Pfirter, the Director-General of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), initiated
the discussion of the CWC during the thematic debate. He has
been the Director-General of OPCW for ten years and will be
retiring in July 2010. The new Director-General will be Ambassador
Ahmet Üzümcü of Turkey.
Ambassador Pfirter said the CWC is a success story in multilateral
disarmament and non-proliferation. Membership of the CWC has
grown to 188 states parties. With the accession of the Dominican
Republic and the Bahamas, all of Latin America and the Caribbean
has joined the CWC. Iraq and Lebanon have also become members.
In the last year, India fulfilled its obligations to completely
destroy its declared stockpile of chemical weapons. Two other
possessor states have completed the destruction of their chemical
weapons. Ambassador Pfirter also indicated that Israel and
Egypt have engaged in dialogue with the OPCW. Israel has allowed
consultations on their territory and Egypt is going to do
so soon.
Ambassador Pfirter indicated that the Russian Federation and
the United States had destroyed 40.1% and 65.5% of their chemical
weapon stockpiles, respectively. The OPCW Executive Council
is considering a proposal that requires the Chairman of the
Council to “engage in informal consultations with all
interested delegations on how, and when, to initiate formal
deliberations of the Council about the feasibility of the
revised deadlines of 2012 being met by possessor states and
to report to the Council at its next session.” The government
of Libya has asked for an extension of its deadline for the
destruction of its Category 1 chemical weapons stockpile.
Albania is the fourth possessor state that is yet to complete
the destruction of its stocks. The Swiss
delegation said that it had rendered assistance to Albania
and Russia in their destruction of chemical weapons. The Non-Aligned
Movement expressed concern that more than 47% of chemical
weapons stockpiles remain to be destroyed.
Australian
MP Paul Neville spoke about the Australia Group, formed
in 1985 to consider how to prevent the diversion of otherwise
legitimate trade in chemicals and equipment to the production
of chemical weapons. It has since expanded to 40 states and
the European Commission.
The delegation of MERCOSUR
and Associated States emphasized that that export controls
on chemical products must not hinder development. The Iranian
delegation warned that the “continuation of the
non-transparent exclusive export control regimes” has
damaged the CWC, emphasizing the importance of removing and
preventing “the imposition of any discriminatory restriction
on access to materials, equipment and technology.”
On 16 October, the government of Lithuania held a side event
focused on chemical weapons dumped in the sea after World
War I and World War II. In the more shallow seas, such as
the Baltic, old chemical weapons are coming to the surface,
appearing on beaches, and being picked up by fisherman. There
is also concern that the laying of cables and drilling for
oil may bring more old chemical weapons to the surface with
unknown effects. Many states spoke at the meeting, calling
for more research on the problem. They decided not to introduce
a resolution this year but probably next year.
WMD Terrorism
Rahma Hussein | Reaching
Critical Will
During the thematic debates on nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction, many states cited the risk of
weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists
and non-state actors as the most imminent and extreme threat
to global security. The delegate from Cuba said that the complete
prohibition and ban of nuclear weapons was the only means
by which the international community could effectively secure
itself from the spectre of nuclear terrorism. Echoing a similar
sentiment, Ambassador Natalegawa of Indonesia, who spoke on
behalf of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM), underscored that the “most effective
way of preventing terrorists from acquiring WMD is through
the total elimination of such weapons.”
While welcoming the recent commitments made by some nuclear
weapon states to eliminate nuclear weapons, many delegations
expressed fear about the vulnerability of nuclear facilities
and the plausible exposure of such sites to terrorist groups
in the interim. Given this concern, representatives of Australia,
Morocco,
the Republic
of Korea, Cameroon,
and the European
Union, among many others, urged the Committee that possible
means of ensuring the protection of nuclear sites should further
be explored.
As a result, many countries commended US President Obama’s
plan to host a Global Nuclear Security Summit in April 2010. The
Summit—which aims to develop collaborative steps to
secure vulnerable materials, combat smuggling, as well as
to deter, detect, and prevent attempts of acquisition by terrorists—may
alleviate the concerns of some delegations. Ambassador
Im of the Republic of Korea said his delegation hopes
that the Nuclear Security Summit “will be an occasion
to mobilize the will of global leaders to tackle the threat
of nuclear terrorism and proliferation of nuclear materials.”
On behalf of Thailand,
Mrs. Chaimongkol expressed her country’s hope that the
“Summit will lead to concrete outcomes on measures to
secure vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear materials from theft
and boost global cooperation to combat the trafficking of
atomic materials and technologies.”
The possibility that terrorists may acquire other weapons
of mass destruction, besides nuclear, added another dimension
to issue considering the relative reach of such weapons to
non-state groups. India’s
Ambassador Rao, while welcoming the initiative by the
United States to convene such a Summit, also expressed India’s
support to enhance international efforts to address the threat
of WMD terrorism. Thus, as in previous years, Ambassador Rao
tabled India’s resolution entitled, “Measures
to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.”
Seeking the support of other delegates, Ambassador Rao expressed
its hope that “this resolution will be adopted by consensus
and receive the co-sponsorship of an increasing group of countries.”
The resolution has not yet been circulated as an official
document.
The Director-General
of the Organization
on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Ambassador
Rogelio Pfirter touched on the work of his organization in
promoting the implementation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC), and illustrated the positive
correlation between the Convention and UN
Security Council Resolution 1540. He indicated that full
implementation of the CWC helps states to fulfill their obligations
under 1540.
However, the delegation
of the Russian Federation raised the issue that countering
terrorist attempts to obtain chemical weapons requires a different
and specific set of instruments apart from those established
in the Convention, since terrorists and non-state actors are
not bound by the same international, and legal obligations
that state actors are to adhere to.
France has tabled a draft decision entitled, “Preventing
the acquisition by terrorists of radioactive materials and
sources,” (A/C.1/64/L.17).
The draft decision simply puts the issue on next year’s
agenda. A text by this title was last tabled in 2007, as draft
resolution that was subsquently adopted by the General Assembly
without a vote as resolution
62/46. It was intended to maintain support for the International
Atomic Energy Agency as a central player in securing sources
of radiological materials, to sustain the universalization
of existing international instruments, and to promote the
expansion of bilateral and multilateral cooperation aimed
at enforcing the security of radioactive sources. While it
was adopted with a vote, CARICOM tabled amendments (A/C.1/62/L.53)
to the draft resolution that extend the focus on the cessation
of the transport of radioactive materials through the regions
of small island developing states. It eventually withdrew
these amendments, though it issued an explanation of vote
emphasising the importance of this element.
Arms Trade Treaty
Kavitha Suthanthiraraj | Global
Action to Prevent War
In a dramatic policy reversal, the United States released
a statement on 14 October that it will support an Arms Trade
Treaty (ATT). Secretary
Clinton affirmed that the United States is “committed
to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains
the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international
transfer of conventional weapons.”
As the world’s biggest exporter of arms, a positive
shift in the US position is seen as a major breakthrough towards
launching formal negotiations at the UN. Many civil society
organizations, especially those in Africa, are hopeful that
strong US leadership will help ensure that a robust treaty
is eventually adopted. IANSA
Africa coordinator Joseph Dube stated, “we hope the
US will show positive leadership and push for a strong treaty,
to help break the cycle of violence that is keeping Africa
poor.” Jasmin
Nario-Galace of the Philippine Action Network on Small Arms
also hailed the announcement, saying, “I see rays of
hope in this statement.”
While praising the administration’s support for the
treaty, some NGOs voiced concerns that US engagement came
at a high price. Secretary Clinton’s statement made
clear US willingness to work towards an international standard
during the 2012 negotiating conference under the rules of
consensus decision-making. She emphasised, “consensus
is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty
and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited
by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.” Thus
this year’s draft
resolution on the ATT specifies that the negotiating conference
“will take decision on the basis of consensus to ensure
a strong and robust treaty.”
Oxfam and Amnesty International issued statements
warning that negotiations on the treaty made on the basis
of consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”
Oxfam International’s policy adviser stated that “governments
must resist any US demands to give any single state the power
to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage
during the course of negotiations.” Amnesty expressed
concern that a single state could “scupper” a
process that in principal has overwhelming support in the
UN.
Numerous delegations to the First Committee continued to
show their commitment and support for the development of a
legally-binding Arms Trade Treaty, including Trinidad
and Tobago, whose representative emphasized that action
on an Arms Trade Treaty was a “moral responsibility”
and “must not be relegated to a mere footnote in our
continued deliberations on disarmament.” This call will
be crucial with the commencement of thematic discussions on
conventional weapons on Monday, 19 October, opened by the
chairman of the Open Ended Working Group towards an Arms Trade
Treaty. It will also be crucial for continued engagement in
the Arms Trade Treaty draft resolution tabled by the United
Kingdom and co-authored by Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica,
Finland, Japan, and Kenya.
Civil society engagement on critical issues related to the
development of an ATT also took place during the week. On
13 October, Oxfam International, SIPRI, and Transparency International
hosted an event titled “Corruption, Transparency and
the ATT”, urging Member States to include rigorous and
detailed anti-corruption provisions in the heart of an ATT.
This week includes side
events on “Peacebuilding at the ATT” on Monday,
19 October at 1:15 in Room A; “Promoting Discussion
on an ATT: Results of the EU-UNIDIR Regional Seminars”
on Tuesday, 20 October at 1:15 in Room 4; and “Women,
peace, and security: The role of an ATT” on Thursday,
22 October at 1:15 in Room A.
Mark Marge of the International Action Network on Small
Arms contributed to this article.
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
| 
