Disarmament Diplomacy

NAM Summit

Extracts

"Disarmament and International Security

101. The Heads of State or Government reiterated that with the end of the Cold War, there is no justification for the maintenance of nuclear arsenals, or concepts of international security based on promoting and developing military alliances and policies of nuclear deterrence. They noted and welcomed the various international initiatives, which stress that with the end of the Cold War the opportunity now exists for the international community to pursue nuclear disarmament as a matter of the highest priority. They also noted that the present situation whereby nuclear-weapon States insist that nuclear weapons provide unique security benefits, and yet monopolise the right to own them, is highly discriminatory, unstable and cannot be sustained. These weapons continued to represent a threat to the survival of the mankind. The Heads of State or Government recalled their principled positions on nuclear disarmament and the related issues of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear tests. They expressed their concern at the slow pace of progress towards nuclear disarmament, which constitutes their primary disarmament objective. They noted the complexities arising from nuclear tests in South Asia, which underlined the need to work even harder to achieve their disarmament objectives, including elimination of nuclear weapons. They considered positively the commitment by the parties concerned in the region to exercise restraint, which contributes to regional security, to discontinue nuclear tests and not to transfer nuclear weapons-related material, equipment and technology. They further stressed the significance of universal adherence to the CTBT, including by all nuclear-weapon States, and commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on fissile materials (decision CD/1547), which, inter-alia, should accelerate the process of nuclear disarmament. They also stressed their positions against unilateral, coercive or discriminatory measures which have been applied against Non-Aligned countries. They reiterated the need for bilateral dialogue to secure peaceful solutions on all outstanding issues and the promotion of confidence and security building measures and mutual trust. They recalled that the Cartagena Summit had called for the adoption of an action plan for the elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. They once again called upon the international community to join them in negotiating and implementing universal, non-discriminatory disarmament measures and mutually agreed confidence-building measures. They called for an international conference, preferably in 1999, with the objective of arriving at an agreement, before the end of this millennium on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time to eliminate all nuclear weapons, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.

102. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their call on the Conference on Disarmament to establish, as the highest priority, an ad hoc committee to start in 1998 negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. ...

103. In this connection, the Heads of State or Government reiterated that a number of Non-Aligned Movement countries had taken collective initiatives at the United Nations General Assembly sessions to underscore the need for urgent action in the field of nuclear disarmament, as mandated by the Cartagena Summit. They recognised all of the constructive and useful proposals put forward by members of the Non-Aligned Movement in the Conference on Disarmament on the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament including the useful work done by Non-Aligned Movement members of the Conference on Disarmament in developing a Programme of Action for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons within a time-bound framework. The Heads of State or Government took note of the Declaration issued on 9 June 1998 entitled - 'Towards a World Free of Nuclear Weapons: Time for a New Agenda', supported and responded to by a number of States including by some members of the Non-Aligned Movement. They recognised that this declaration as well as all other initiatives which have consistently been proposed by the Movement and its members are contributions to the goal of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and called upon the nuclear-weapon States to react positively to these initiatives. ...

104. The Heads of State or Government expressed concern over the failure of the nuclear-weapon States to demonstrate a genuine commitment with regard to complete nuclear disarmament, and to provide universal, unconditional, and legally binding negative security assurances to all non-nuclear-weapon States, and urged the nuclear-weapon States to immediately commence and conclude without delay negotiations on these assurances.

105. The Heads of State or Government noted the establishment of an ad hoc Committee on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons in the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate universal, unconditional and legally binding assurances to all non-nuclear-weapon States. In this context, they expressed their conviction that efforts for the conclusion of a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States should be pursued as a matter of priority by the members of the Non-Aligned Movement.

106. The Heads of State or Government commend the establishment in the Conference on Disarmament of an ad hoc committee, under agenda item 1, entitled 'The cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament', to negotiate a convention on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and believe that the proposed convention must constitute a nuclear disarmament measure and not only a non-proliferation measure, and must be an integral step leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The treaty should also promote international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and should not hinder access to nuclear technology, equipment and material for peaceful purposes by developing countries.

107. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their conviction of the validity of the unanimous conclusion of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice that 'There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control', and recognised that the unanimous conclusion contained in the International Court of Justices' Advisory Opinion has identified existing international law obligations. In this connection, they reiterated their call upon all States to immediately fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of threat of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

108. The Heads of State or Government noted with concern that undue restrictions on exports to developing countries of material, equipment and technology, for peaceful purposes persist. They emphasised that proliferation concerns are best addressed through multilaterally negotiated, universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory agreements. ... In this regard they also expressed their strong rejection of attempts by any member State to use the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) technical cooperation programme as a tool for political purposes in violation of the IAEA's Statute.

109. Consistent with the decisions taken by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Heads of State or Government of States party to the NPT called upon all States party, particularly the nuclear-weapon States, to fulfil their commitments, particularly those related to Article VI of the Treaty. ...

110. The Heads of State or Government of States party to the NPT took note with regret at the outcome of the deliberations of the Second Preparatory Committee held in Geneva from 27 April to 8 May, 1998. They further regretted that the Committee could not achieve a substantive result due to the insistence of one delegation to support the nuclear policies of a non-party to the NPT. They called upon the Preparatory Committees up to and including the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT to engage immediately, in good faith, in substantive work for the speedy and meaningful implementation of the obligations under the Treaty and the commitments in the 1995 Principles and Objectives document, and the resolution on Middle East. In this respect they further called upon the Preparatory Committee to make specific time available at its future sessions to deliberate on the practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and for the 2000 NPT Review Conference to establish a subsidiary body to its Main Committee to deliberate on the practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. The Heads of State or Government parties to the NPT, called for the establishment of a subsidiary body to its Main Committee II to consider and recommend proposals on the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT.

111. The Heads of State or Government Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons also called for the creation of an open-ended standing committee which would work intersessionally, to follow up recommendations concerning the implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which would be agreed to at the Treaty's 2000 Review Conference.

112. The Heads of State or Government of State signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty expressed their satisfaction that 139 States have signed the Treaty and 14 States have ratified it thus far. They further expressed their general satisfaction at the progress of establishing the international verification system thus far. They agreed that if the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realised, the continued commitment of all State signatories, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to nuclear disarmament would be essential.

113. The Heads of State or Government reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities - operational or under construction - poses a great danger to human beings and the environment, and constitutes a grave violation of international law, principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They recognised the need for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument, prohibiting attacks, or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

114. The Heads of State or Government of the States party to the Chemical Weapons Convention welcomed the increasing number of ratifications of the Convention and invited all States who have still not ratified it to do so as soon as possible with the view to its universality. They also underlined the urgency of satisfactorily resolving the unresolved issues in the framework of the Organisation of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) with a view to paving the ground for the effective, full and non-discriminatory implementation of the Convention. In this context, they reiterated their call on the developed countries to promote international cooperation through the transfer of technology, material and equipment for peaceful purposes in the chemical field and the removal of all and any discriminatory restrictions that are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Convention.

115. The Heads of State or Government of the States party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, while stressing the importance of the full implementation of the Convention, and in this context, the provisions of Article X on Assistance, expressed their concern at the small number of responses received from the States Parties to the Voluntary Fund on Assistance established by the OPCW and called upon all States Parties to the Convention that had not yet acted in accordance with Article X, to reply to the OPCW and contribute to redress this situation.

116. While asserting that the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention inherently precludes the use of biological weapons, the Heads of State or Government reiterated the decision by the BWC Review Conference that the use by the States parties, in any way and under any circumstances, of microbial or other biological agents or toxins, that is not consistent with prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes, is effectively a violation of Article I of the Convention. In this connection they noted that the Islamic Republic of Iran has formally presented a proposal to amend Article I of the Convention to include the prohibition of use of biological weapons and urged an early reply from the States parties to the inquiries by the depositories on this proposal. They noted the progress achieved so far negotiating a Protocol to strengthen the BWC and reaffirmed the decision of the Fourth Review Conference urging the conclusion of the negotiations by the Ad Hoc group as soon as possible before the commencement of the Fifth Review Conference and for it to submit its report, which shall be adopted by consensus, to the States parties, to be considered at a Special Conference. Therefore, artificial deadlines should be avoided. They also expressed their concern at any attempts to reduce the scope and importance of issues related to Article X of the Convention. Ensured access for peaceful purposes to the relevant materials, equipment and technology is essential to safeguard the economic interests of developing countries. Substantive progress in strengthening the application and full operationalisation of Article X is thus crucial for the conclusion of a universally acceptable and legally binding instrument designed to strengthen the Convention.

117. The Heads of State or Government expressed particular concern over the illicit transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons and their accumulation and proliferation in many countries... In this regard, they welcomed the adoption of guidelines in 1996 for international arm transfers in the context of General Assembly resolution 46/36H of 6 September 1991 by the United Nations Disarmament Commission. Moreover, they welcomed the initiative by His Excellency Alpha Oumar Konare, President of the Republic of Mali, on the establishment of a moratorium on the production, transfer and illicit traffic of light arms in West Africa, adopted by member States of ECOWAS within the framework of on-going discussions and referring to the creation of a mechanism to prevent, handle and rule on conflicts in the sub-region. They also welcomed the decision adopted by the 34th Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) regarding the problem of small arms and light weapons in Africa.

118. The Heads of State or Government recognised that there is also a significant imbalance in the production, possession and trade in conventional weapons between the industrialised and the Non-Aligned countries and they called for a significant reduction in the production, possession and trade of conventional weapons by the States with the largest arsenals with a view to enhancing international and regional peace and security.

119. The Heads of State or Government encouraged States, taking into account the legitimate requirement of States for self-defence and the specific characteristics of each region, to consider appropriate initiatives at international, regional and national levels to promote transparency in all types of armaments as an important element for building confidence and security. They also stressed that the concept of transparency should encompass both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction, in particular, nuclear weapons.

120. The Heads of State or Government called on States to become parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) and the Protocols thereto, and expressed their satisfaction on the entry into force of its Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons on 30 July 1998 as well as the announcement by the UN Secretary-General that the Protocol II, as amended, on Mines, Booby-Traps and other Devices of the CCW would enter into force on 3 December 1998.

121. The Heads of State or Government called upon the international community to provide the necessary assistance to landmine clearance operations as well as to the rehabilitation of the victims and their social and economic reintegration in the landmine affected countries. ...

123. The Heads of State or Government expressed concern about the residue of the Second World War, particularly in the form of landmines which cause human and material damage and obstruct development plans in some Non-Aligned countries. ...

124. The Heads of State or Government considered the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs) as a positive step towards attaining the objective of global nuclear disarmament. They urged States to conclude agreements with a view to creating nuclear-weapon-free zones in regions where they do not exist, in accordance with the provisions of the Final Document of the Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-I). ...

125. The Heads of State or Government welcomed and supported Mongolia's policy to institutionalise its single State nuclear weapon-free status.

126. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their support for the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. ... They called upon all parties concerned to take urgent and practical steps towards the establishment of such a zone and, pending its establishment, they called on Israel, the only country in the region that has not joined the NPT nor declared its intention to do so, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, to accede to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) without delay, and to place promptly all its nuclear facilities under IAEA full-scope safeguards. ... They further welcomed the initiative by H.E. Mohammed Hosni Mubarak, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, on the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. They stressed that necessary steps should be taken in different international fora for the establishment of this zone. They also called for the total and complete prohibition of the transfer of all nuclear-related equipment, information, material and facilities, resources or devices and the extension of assistance in the nuclear related scientific or technological fields to Israel. …

132. The Heads of State or Government continued to stress their hope that the decision to re-establish at the United Nations Secretariat, the Department on Disarmament, headed by an Under Secretary General from a Non-Aligned country should contribute to greater disarmament efforts towards achieving general and complete disarmament in conformity with priorities set out in SSOD I and relevant provisions of General Assembly resolution 52/220.

133. The Heads of State or Government expressed once again their support for the convening of the Fourth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to Disarmament. They welcomed the adoption by the General Assembly, by consensus, of the resolution on the Convening of the IV Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament. They took note of the deliberations on the matter held by the United Nations Disarmament Commission and directed the Coordinating Bureau to entrust the Non-Aligned Movement Working Group on Disarmament with the task of pursuing further the holding of the Fourth Special Session and the related coordination during the preparatory process. In this context, they reaffirmed the need to continue to press for further steps leading to its convening with the participation of all member States of the United Nations as well as the need for SSOD IV to review and assess the implementation of SSOD I. ..."

Source: South African Foreign Ministry web-site special feature on the summit, address http://www.nam.gov.za

© 1998 The Acronym Institute.

Return to top of page

Return to List of Contents

Return to Acronym Main Page