|
Missiles
Introduction
This text is from the preface,
written by Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament,
for
Beyond
Missile Defense
a report authored by Andrew Lichterman (Western States
Legal Foundation), Zia Mian (Princeton University), M. V. Ramana
(Princeton University), and Jürgen Scheffran (INESAP, Technical
University Darmstadt) in October 2002.
On 15 April 1999, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a statement
drawing the world’s attention to the lack of binding multilateral
norms concerning missiles. Although the Preamble of the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
includes the goal of eliminating delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons,
the world has been lamentably slow in fulfilling this promise. This
applies not just to missiles per se, but also to their development,
production, stockpiling, export, and proliferation — as well as
to missile defenses.
So when, on 20 November 2000, the General Assembly adopted a resolution
on Missiles, the world community took notice. The resolution asked
the Secretary-General to prepare a report with the assistance of
a panel of governmental experts on the subject of missiles in all
its aspects. In July 2002, the Secretary-General transmitted the
report to the General Assembly, an act that itself marked a step
forward in the norm-building process, since it was somewhat extraordinary
that a group of governmental experts from diverse countries could
reach a consensus on such a sensitive subject.1
While very thin on recommendations, the report concluded that —
missiles are posing “serious concerns” for international peace and
security; these issues cannot be effectively addressed without due
regard to their regional and global dimensions; “there exists at
present no universally accepted norms or instruments” dealing with
missiles; many approaches to the subject are being undertaken both
within and outside the United Nations; and that many more such international
efforts will be needed.
1. A/57/229, 23 July 2002.
Current Status and Debate
Text from from a report by Michael Spies, Lawyers'
Committee on Nuclear Policy, in the First Committee Monitor
2007, Week
1 and Week
2:
The Third Panel of Governmental Experts on Missiles, established
by UNGA resolution 59/67 (2004), met for its first session in June
2007. Whereas the first panel, established by UNGA resolution 55/33
A (2000), was able to adopt a comprehensive factual report—though
falling well short of drawing any actionable conclusions, much less
recommendations—this third attempt follows the failure of
the second panel to even adopt a final report, intended at the outset
merely “to explore further the issue of missiles in all its
aspects.” The mandate of the present Panel of Experts is “to
explore further ways and means to address within the United Nations
the issue of missiles in all its aspects, including identifying
areas where consensus can be reached,” and to submit a report,
expected to be completed by June 2008, to the sixty-third session
of the General Assembly.
Statements made during the 2007 General Assembly First Committee
on Disarmament and International Security reflect continuing divergence
on priority and method [of dealing with missiles], with little interest
or will in bridging the gap. Nor are there any signs of a multilateral
missile treaty emerging anytime soon, as was pointed out by High
Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte. The European
Union approached missiles only as “WMD delivery systems”,
and continued “to promote the universal ratification of, and
adherence to … the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic
Missile Proliferation.” Again repeating its contrary view,
the Association of South East Asian Nations, in a statement delivered
by Myanmar, cited “an urgent need for a comprehensive approach
towards missiles proliferation,” and called for “multilaterally
negotiated, universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory”
agreements. This view is similar to the approach taken in the preamble
of resolution 61/59, from which most European and NATO states abstained,
in part due to the resolution's lack of reference to the Hague Code
of Conduct.
The delegation of Iran expressed pleasure that the third Panel
of Government Experts on missiles seemed to have a “very constructive
and serious discussion” during its first substantive session.
In light of the fact that the panel will have two additional sessions
in 2008, the Iranians announced they would introduce a draft decision
on the issue of missiles instead of a substantive resolution “as
suggested by the 2005 recommendations of the Committee on ‘methods
of work.’”
In his general statement to the First Committee, Ambassador Khan
of Pakistan described the proliferation and development of missiles
and anti-ballistic missile systems as an emerging threat to international
stability, and stated it should be dealt with in an international
agreement as part of what he described as a proposed “new
disarmament architecture”. Referring to existing export regimes
as discriminatory, Ambassador Khan stated they would never work
because they would not constrain states determined to develop a
ballistic missile capability. He also called for a multilateral
treaty to prohibit deployment of ballistic missile defense systems,
which he described as “inherently destabilizing both at the
strategic and the regional levels,” and for an accompanying
agreement for limitations on other kinds of missile systems. Ambassador
Khan further advocated for the Conference on Disarmament to take
up the issue of anti-ballistic missiles as a priority item and to
consider discussions of missiles.
Also chiming in on the subject of ballistic missile defense, Ambassador
Pak Gil Yon of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea took the
floor during the General Debate to denounce the deployment of US
missile defense systems. US State Department representative Jeffrey
Eberhardt, in a panel discussion on nuclear disarmament, took a
contrary approach, suggesting that the deployment of ballistic missile
defenses could actually facilitate nuclear disarmament by assisting
in creation of a "new security environment".
Recommended Reading
There is an important role for citizens and non-governmental organizations
to play in promoting and implementing missile control and disarmament.
Jurgen Scheffran writes:
"In order to increase public awareness, a greater public
discourse on the missile problem and its resolution is required.
By building a network of information exchange and debate, experts,
civil society and officials could be jointly engaged in this process.
Activities could include meetings and conferences involving scientists
and technicians, as well as protests at, and attempts to conduct
citizen inspections of, critical facilities."
Jurgen Scheffran, "Moving
Beyond Missile Defence: The Search for Alternatives to the Missile
Race," Disarmament Diplomacy No. 55, March 2001.
Western
States Legal Foundation has a wealth of resources on missiles
and missile defense, including:
- Andrew Lichterman, "Missiles
of Empire: America's 21st Century Global Legions," Western
States Legal Foundation Information Paper, October 2003.
- Andrew Lichterman, et al., Beyond
Missile Defense, October 2002.
- Andrew Lichterman, "Banning
Ballistic Missiles: In the Long Run, It may be Easier than Shooting
Them Down," WSLF Issue Brief, Summer 2001.
Additional Resources:
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
| 
