Reaching Critical Will

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Special Session on Disarmament

The Security Council on the regulation of armaments and military spending:
Open debate on Article 26 of the UN Charter
Report by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
3 December 2008, New York

Introduction | Themes | Proposals | Report | Action

Introduction
On 19 November 2008, the UN Security Council held an open debate on enhancing collective security through the regulation of armaments and reduction of military spending. The government of Costa Rica initiated the debate to revitalize discussion around Article 26 of the UN Charter, which says:

In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.

For more information on Article 26, please see RCW's fact sheet on Article 26.

Important themes and concepts from the debate

Collective security

In order to be successful and sustainable, security must be a collective, cooperative effort and must benefit the citizens of every state. Security is a common good and only has value when it is shared by others. Security is basic human right.
Collective security guarantees human being’s right to well-being and dignity, the promotion of collective over private interests, intercultural exchange, social inclusion, etc.
Collective security is a two-sided coin, equally responsible for non-proliferation and disarmament.
Collective security must be based on consensus and a common perception of security threats.
Multilateralism and the rule of law are fundamental to collective security. The UN Charter is premised on the notion of collective security.
Collective security is threatened by the continued existence of devastating weapons. Principles of respect and peaceful settlement of disputes are threatened when some countries seek a military advantage over the rest.
To eliminate the root causes of insecurity, states need to promote mutual trust, equality, and assistance. States need to respect legitimate concerns of other states and must be committed to global strategic stability.
Nuclear disarmament is only rational path to collective security.

Regulating the arms trade

A comprehensive, legally-binding arms trade treaty is key to effectively regulating armaments and enhancing collective security.
Transparency and monitoring of arms procurement, production, and trade is necessary to curb illicit trade of weapons. Transparency is a prerequisite for mutual trust.
Uncontrolled access to small arms and light weapons pose the biggest threat to peace, security, and development.
Armament regulation must be pursued in parallel with efforts toward settling disputes peacefully and removing underlying security concerns.
Confidence-building measures are essential to conflict resolution and ending conflicts will inevitably curtail the excess demand for weapons.
The illegal arms trade is not the only concern—the armaments industry and governments that sell arms through legal channels also promote conflict and arms races.

Disarmament and development

Peace, security, human rights, development, and disarmament are inextricably linked. Without security and stability there can be no development, and vice versa.
Regional and subregional organization is important for conflict prevention and resolution and post-conflict reconstruction. It costs less to prevent than to control conflicts.
Military spending needs to be curbed and limited to bring military capabilities in line with legitimate needs of security. While reduction of armaments does not necessarily translate to increased security or to development, it can help release funds to meet development needs and create an environment more conducive to development.
Reducing military expenditures can lead to increased resources to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Implementation of disarmament agreements also releases some resources, which, if devoted to economic development and fulfillment of the MDGs, will contribute to collective security in its broadest sense.
The more states invest in other means of maintaining peace and security—ie. bilateral and regional cooperation, conflict prevention, mediation, peacebuilding, economic and social development—the less they will have to invest in arms.
Matters of war and peace should not be seen in isolation of rights of people to socio-economic development.
Spending on armaments and disproportionately sized military forces constitutes a poor allocation of resources.

Proposals

Proposals related directly related to Article 26

Establish regional commitments to maintain collectively agreed levels of military spending, with the Security Council and regional organizations serving as effective guarantors of compliance. (Suggested by Costa Rica)
Support the Costa Rica Consensus, which calls for the establishment of mechanisms to pardon debts and contribute financial resources to those developing countries that increasingly invest more in public health, education, and housing and less on weapons and soldiers. (Suggested by Costa Rica)
Begin global multilateral negotiations on the regulation of armaments, which should be strengthened within Chapter VIII of the Charter (Regional Arrangements). (Suggested by Libya and Nigeria)
Have the Security Council present proposals to parties in conflicts and make disarmament a key subject in peace negotiations. (Suggested by Switzerland)
Have the Security Council use a methodology similar to that of the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development—identifying a number of voluntary pilot countries with a view to drawing up and implementing policies and programmes to reduce armed violence. (Suggested by Switzerland)
Consider not just regulation of armaments but also security sector reform and demobilization, demilitarization, and reintegration of former combatants. (Suggested by Switzerland)
Encourage a more proactive role for the Security Council in disarmament to strengthen multilateral treaties and to help overcome the deadlocks and “gaps in consensus” in existing disarmament machinery. (Suggested by Canada)
Engage in “significant consultation and further study” regarding the possibility of renewing the activity of the Military Staff Committee. (Suggested by Canada)
Enhance transparency in military expenditures and arms transfers. (Suggested by Canada)
Encourage a more proactive role for the Security Council in disarmament to strengthen multilateral treaties and to help overcome the deadlocks and “gaps in consensus” in existing disarmament machinery. (Suggested by Canada)
Begin negotiations on the “balanced reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments,” with an emphasis on “military significant States,” in parallel with negotiations on nuclear disarmament. Armament regulation should ensure “undiminished security” for all, and should not only be aimed at transfer controls but also take into account “existing asymmetries and military imbalances and stockpiles, as well as production and manufacturing.” (Suggested by Pakistan)
Pursue complimentary global and regional approaches to disarmament simultaneously. (Suggested by Italy)
Have a serious discussion, in the context of the energy, food, and climate crises, on the priorities of public spending and investment. (Suggested by Ecuador)
Ensure the UN takes measures to prevent arms manufacturing countries from encouraging arms races in regions with developing countries by sending some countries in the region millions of dollars worth of armaments, which “forces every country to naturally feel the need to find a mechanism with which to defend itself, even at the cost of hunger for its people.” (Suggested by Bolivia)

Proposals related to specific disarmament and arms control measures

Establish common international standards for transfer in armaments and negotiate a legally-binding arms trade treaty. (Suggested by Costa Rica, United Kingdom, Belgium, Croatia, Mexico, Nigeria, Ecuador, Australia, Argentina, Spain, Holy See, Austria, Armenia, and Tanzania)
Establish a global database to track and monitor trade in small arms and light weapons. (Suggested by Panama)
Mainstream disarmament into development policies. (Suggested by the United Kingdom)
Implement the General Assembly’s repeated resolutions on the relationship between disarmament and development. (Suggested by Qatar)
Engage in irreversible, verifiable nuclear disarmament and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security policies. (Suggested by China)
Reduce operational status of nuclear weapons. (Suggested by Chile)
Sign and ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions. (Suggested by Croatia, Mexico, Ecuador, and Austria)
Implement the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons. (Suggested by Argentina, Ecuador, Spain, and Colombia)
Implement the Nairobi Protocol for the Prevention, Control and Reduction of Small Arms in the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa. (Suggested by the Holy See)
Bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force. (Suggested by Austria)
Pending nuclear disarmament, develop a universal, non-discriminatory, legally-binding instrument on negative security assurances. (Suggested by Pakistan)
Strengthen the legal regime on preventing the weaponization of outer space. (Suggested by Pakistan)
Evolve a universal, non-discriminatory agreement on the development, deployment, and proliferation of missiles and anti-ballistic missiles systems. (Suggested by Pakistan)
Support the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development. (Suggested by Croatia, Switzerland, Spain, Morocco)

Proposals related to collective security

Ensure adequate military expertise and enhance quality of decision-making in peacekeeping operations. (Suggested by Russia)
Need to focus on regulating arms and disarmament in peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts. (Suggested by Japan)
Establish legally-binding regional security mechanisms based on indivisible security. (Suggested by Russia)
Build on the synergies of UN and regional arrangements—ie. between the UN and the African Union—to strengthen collective security. (Suggested by South Africa)
Establish nuclear weapon free zones. (Suggested by Indonesia)
Base collective security on genuine partnership between nation states and member states in order to “translate the dividends of collective security into a tangible tool of conflict prevention.” (Suggested by Nigeria)
Exercise caution in entrusting the responsibility for collective security to the Security Council, as its tendency to “legislate on behalf of Member States on matters of armaments control are bound to raise security concerns among the overwhelming majority of developing countries that are not represented in the Security Council.” (Suggested by Pakistan)
Allow all states to participate in existing export control arrangements, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. (Suggested by Pakistan)
Establish multilateral regulation of the nuclear fuel cycle to increase confidence and mutual trust between states. (Suggested by Austria)
Address all threats to human security “with equal effectiveness, without any discrimination, and deal with each threat in the same way as the others, because it has been well established that threats transcend borders and that their effects are universal.” (Suggested by Morocco)
Mobilize increased resources to implement integrated peacebuilding strategies and ensure the systematic, constant, and concrete commitment of partners, regional and international institutions, donors, and countries. (Suggested by Morocco)
Before forging collective security arrangements, states of a region must commit themselves to the non-use of force in the settlement of unresolved conflicts. (Suggested by Armenia)
Mobilize the international community to eliminate the root causes of conflict through developing the interdependence of states, their internal relations, and the relationship between human beings and nature. (Suggested by Benin)
Ensure the Security Council is more even-handed in the execution of its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, as its disparity in actions do not build an environment in which states feel comfortable disarming or reducing military expenditures. (Suggested by South Africa)
Ensure justice and balance in non-proliferation efforts. (Suggested by China)
Ensure actions in non-proliferation are accompanied by actions in disarmament. (Suggested by Argentina)
Ensure the main organs of the United Nations respect their specific areas of competence—ie. the General Assembly should maintain a transparent, legislative role while the Security Council should consider new security policy challenges in its assessment of specific conflicts. (Suggested by Switzerland)
Ensure that regional efforts to reduce and regulate armaments bear in mind the specific nature of the region and create a sense of ownership by the main actors. (Suggested by Switzerland)
Ensure “regular, comprehensive interaction” between regional organizations and the Security Council. (Suggested by Canada)

Proposals related to multilateralism

Strengthen cooperation and coordination between the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, and regional organizations. (Suggested by Viet Nam)
Reform the structure and function of the Security Council:
- 15 permanent members (Russia)
- More representative and transparent (Chile)
Revitalize multilateral disarmament fora. (Suggested by China)
Convene the Fourth Special Session for Disarmament of the General Assembly in order to develop a far-reaching, forward-looking view of goals for disarmament and international security and to establish a new roadmap for disarmament, negotiated by the General Assembly. (Suggested by Chile)
Encourage the Security Council to establish a relationship with the General Assembly to strengthen the multilateral system “as the sole effective way to establish peace and build development.” (Suggested by Ecuador)
Establish clearer mandates to delineate between the functions of the General Assembly, the Security Council, various multilateral disarmament fora, and regional institutions. (Suggested by Guatemala)
Establish effective multilateralism through which the General Assembly can act as the “essential instrument in facilitating cooperation” in three linked priority areas: maintenance of international peace and security; economic and social development; and respect for human rights and the rule of law. (Suggested by Spain)

Report on the debate
In a concept paper circulated before the debate, the Costa Rican delegation emphasized that the regulation or limitation of armaments should be seen as part of the UN’s toolkit for international stability, development, and conflict resolution, that it is “one element of the broader and more comprehensive design for the maintenance of international peace and security.” Highlighting the concurrent responsibilities of the General Assembly and the Security Council and the importance of multilateralism, the paper urged “more consistent monitoring, more effective implementation and, where necessary, firmer enforcement of treaty obligations,” particularly those of the UN Charter.

The paper called for a “constructive and proactive interaction” between regional security arrangements and the Security Council in the context of Article 26. In particular, it suggested the establishment of regional commitments to maintaining collectively agreed levels of military spending, “with the Security Council and regional organizations serving as effective guarantors of compliance.”

In his statement to the debate, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias argued that the wording of Article 26 is not an accident—spending in arms is a diversion of human and economic resources; asking for the least diversion of resources for armaments means finding alternatives to excessive military spending that do not under security. One such alternative, he argued, is strengthening multilateralism. As long as states do not feel protected by regional and international organizations or arrangements, they will continue to arm themselves at the expense of their people’s development—especially economic and social development of their poor—and at the expense of international security.

Representatives of 38 other governments delivered statements at the open debate, including all of the permanent and current rotating members of the Security Council.

The P5 response
The United Kingdom, United States, Russia, China, and France responded to the subject of the debate by reiterating their efforts toward nuclear disarmament and emphasized their priority areas for further disarmament and non-proliferation initiatives. For example, the UK delegation highlighted the importance of developing an arms trade treaty and verification of nuclear disarmament; the United States cited the Proliferation Security Initiative, Wassenaar Arrangement, and Security Council Resolution 1540; the Russian Federation called for the internationalization of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and replacement of the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty; China advocated for the prevention of the weaponization of outer space; and France laid out its priority steps toward nuclear disarmament.

Russia did address issues of collective security, emphasizing the importance of peacekeeping for enhancing existing security architecture and calling for legally-binding regional security arrangements. The UK delegation welcomed the idea of mainstreaming disarmament into development policies. For the most part, however, the P5 focused on their own disarmament policies without concretely addressing the issue of Article 26, reduction of military spending, or the regulation of armaments. The US delegation broached the subject briefly, agreeing only that the “reduction of armaments is important for many states,” and stating that “under the right circumstances, reduction of armaments can enhance security and development.” (Emphasis added)

Comments worthy of comment
Many delegations chose to focus on the issue of collective security in general, raising some important points about the failure of international relations to establish a collective security system like that envisioned by the UN Charter. Nigeria’s permanent representative noted, “While States have espoused support collective security, they have in the same vein demonstrated considerable reluctance to pursue common global security policies.”

High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte delivered a statement on behalf of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who stressed that security is a common good and only has value when it is shared by others. Recognizing this, many delegations, such as that of Ecuador, noted the importance of introducing “a radical change in the structures of the current international order.” Some delegations laid out specific points to this end, including those of Pakistan and Switzerland (see above lists of proposals).

Many other delegations, including Armenia and Qatar, pointed to specific instances of international armed aggression to argue the need for radical changes in the international order and the development of real collective security. Armenia’s representative pointed to the challenges facing the South Caucasus “stemming from the lack of regional security arrangements and a deficiency of existing arms control and regulation mechanisms.” Relating armed aggression to lack of development, Qatar’s representative argued, “Foreign occupation of the lands of other peoples is a serious threat to international peace and security, for it leads not only to chaos, economic destruction, flows of weapons and the depletion of the international community’s resources, but also, consequently to the loss of development opportunities.” He pointed to the current financial crisis as “convincing evidence of that clear fact.”

Indeed, several delegations eloquently linked disarmament to development, arguing that spending on armaments and disproportionately sized military forces constitutes a poor allocation of resources. The Holy See said, “The lack of regulation and commitment to reducing global arms supplies has created a world in which weapons are more easily obtainable than food, shelter and education.” A few delegates recognized that military spending needs to be curbed and limited to bring military capabilities in line with legitimate needs of security. They also argued that while reduction of armaments does not necessarily translate to increased security or to development, it can help release funds to meet development needs and create an environment more conducive to development.

A number of delegations argued that the implementation of the UN Programme of Action on curbing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and the negotiation of an arms trade treaty would be proactive steps toward the regulation of illegal armaments. However, Bolivia’s representative questioned “whether the licit arms trade would be less deadly than the illicit.” He argued, “many of the armed conflicts are the result of the stinginess of those countries that promote war and the industry of war.” He asked, “Why does the United Nations not take the initiative to generate a project that would make it possible to systematically ban arms production? Arms are the true cause of conflicts.” Noting that Bolivia has “experienced two wars that were caused, not by hatred or conflict between brothers [sic] or with neighbouring countries, but rather by the interests of transnational firms, which organized and planned the armed conflicts,” Bolivia’s representative explained that his country is about to adopt a new political constitution that sets out Bolivia’s position as a pacifist state that rejects wars of aggression, the stationing of foreign military bases on its soil, and promotes a culture of peace and right to peace. He argued that peace is based on dialogue and disarmament—not only physical but also spiritual disarmament.

In recommending action to the Security Council on Article 26, several delegations gave words of caution and advice. Argentina’s representative argued that given the failure of existing disarmament machinery, such as the Conference on Disarmament, to achieve meaningful results in recent years, “To think that it is possible to revitalize a Military Staff Committee whose functions it has never been possible to activate and to enable it to address disarmament and regulation of armaments does not seem to be a realistic way to achieve the desired objective.” Canada’s delegation likewise warned that significant debate would be needed before revitalizing this defunct body.

A few delegates pointed to Costa Rica’s concept paper as a good starting point for the Security Council to take action on Article 26. Benin’s representative encouraged the Security Council to implement the ideas put forth in paragraphs 10–20 of the concept paper. He also highlighted a study by Oxford University professor Paul Collier on regional coordination for the reduction of military expenditures.

For other specific recommendations, please see the lists above.

Presidential Statement
The Presidential Statement, as read out by Costa Rica’s delegate, is unfortunately a rather bland lowest-common denominator summary of comments and suggestions made throughout the debate. It employs the phrase “as appropriate” numerous times:

It notes that the “regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces, as appropriate, constitute one of the most important measures to promote international peace and security with the least diversion of the world’s human and economic resources.”
It calls for “appropriate levels of military expenditure, in order to achieve undiminished security for all at the lowest appropriate level of armaments.”
It urges states to devote “as many resources as possible” to development.
It supports all levels of agreements for reducing military expenditures “where appropriate”.

Without mentioning Article 26 by name, the statement notes the importance of collective security, expresses concern with rising military expenditures, and calls on states to reinforce and/or implement existing agreements and to cooperate with regional and subregional organizations. It does not call upon the Security Council for further action on implementing Article 26 or for coming up with a plan to regulate armaments or reducing military expenditures. Nor does it take up any of Costa Rica’s suggestions regarding establishing a relationship between regional security arrangements and the Security Council.

Conclusion
The subject of this open debate is one of the most fundamentally urgent and vitally important challenges facing the international community today. The Security Council’s failure to develop a sufficient plan to regulate armaments has undermined the goals of the United Nations and created crises of international, national, and human security and of sustainable development. The General Assembly has assumed the burden of moving forward with disarmament without a formal plan sanctioned by the Security Council—and thus without the full support of its five permanent members.

Without being specifically mandated to formulate a plan to regulate armaments, the task set out in Article 26 fell to a group of multilateral disarmament bodies, including the UN Disarmament Commission (mandated to make recommendations on disarmament issues to the General Assembly), the General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security (mandated to “build consensus” on disarmament issues), and the Conference on Disarmament (mandated to negotiate multilateral disarmament treaties). While cooperation in these fora has led to certain disarmament measures being successfully deliberated, negotiated, and implemented, the Disarmament Commission and First Committee have in recent years largely become showcases to highlight divisions of governmental opinion on matters of disarmament, non-proliferation, and international security. Meanwhile, the Conference on Disarmament has not adopted a programme of work since 1999.

The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom welcomes Costa Rica’s efforts to stimulate debate on this subject and its thoughtful concept paper. We also appreciate the thoughtful insights and suggestions put forward by many of the 38 other delegations that contributed to the debate. However, we lament the lack of concrete proposals and commitments to move forward and the underwhelming presidential statement. We call on all concerned governments and members of civil society to continue pressuring their governments and the Security Council members to promote the discussion and implementation of Article 26.

Action
Civil society and governments alike should:

Call on the Security Council to report on progress made toward a plan to reduce the human and economic resources spent on armaments;
Request that, within one year, the Office of Legal Affairs, Office for Disarmament Affairs, individual governments, and NGOs report on ways and means for implementing Article 26;
Indicate an intention to evaluate the Security Council’s performance and initiatives towards advancing Article 26 in the next General Assembly session;
Call on the world’s disarmament experts concentrated in Geneva at the Conference on Disarmament to report on various paths of action that could be taken up to ensure that the Article 26 obligation is fulfilled, in the interests of revitalizing the First Committee to undertake the tasks for which it was created, and revitalizing the Conference on Disarmament which has been blocked for 9 years;
Encourage the First Committee to promote and adopt a resolution containing the above elements and/or to draft a convention or protocol on implementing Article 26, calling on all UN member states to make a legally-binding regional or international commitment to reducing the diversion for armaments of their state’s human and economic resources by an agreed percentage per year;
Call on governments to participate in the UN Register of Conventional Arms and the UN Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures to enhance transparency and confidence-building; and
Make the reduction of militarism a global norm through sustained development of a culture of peace, in order to help shift policies and budgets onto different paths.