United Nations First Committee and the Conference on Disarmament

Back to the main page on the First Committee

UN First Committee 2004

UN First Committee closes on November 5 after deciding to enhance its future work programme and adopting its remaining 8 resolutions.

Rebecca Johnson

During the 5 weeks of its meeting from October 4 to November 5, the 59th First Committee, chaired by Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, adopted 48 resolutions and 3 decisions, but this tally does not fully sum up the constructive changes and considerable additional work carried out under the leadership of the most active and determined Chair the Acronym Institute has seen in 9 years of reporting on the First Committee. A full report and analysis will be published in Disarmament Diplomacy after the General Assembly has taken action on the First Committee resolutions. A summary of the general debate and contemporaneous reports of the voting these past few weeks have been posted on http://www.acronym.org.uk/un/2004FC01.htm. See also http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org for other NGO coverage, including the scanned text of the First Committee resolutions and many of the statements.

Final week
Meeting early Wednesday morning in an atmosphere of leaden depression (with only a few beaming exceptions) following the US election results, the UN First Committee adopted without a vote resolutions on the bilateral strategic framework, Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons (SALW) and Man-portable air defence missiles (MANPADs). On Thursday, November 4, the Committee adopted the usual consensus resolution supporting CD negotiations on a fissban (FMCT) by 147:1:2. Additionally, resolutions on the UN study on disarmament and nonproliferation education and the 'maintenance of international security, good neighbourlinesness, stability and developments in South Eastern Europe were both adopted without a vote. The Committee met for the last time on Friday to discuss and agree the Chair's proposals on organising future FC work more effectively, and to give consensus to a jointly sponsored resolution on "improving the effectiveness of the methods of work of the First Committee", which replaced two rival resolutions on the same subject tabled by the United States and Indonesdia/NAM respectively, which were withdrawn.

Fissban
The long-titled resolution calling for a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" (Fissban/FMCT resolution, L. 34), sponsored by Canada, has in previous years been adopted without a vote, but was controversial this year following the US decision to oppose verification. As announced to the CD in July-August 2003, and repeated several times during the First Committee, the US had conducted an internal review which deemed effective verification of the cut-off treaty to be "not achievable". This year, therefore, the UN gave notice that if the resolution was put, it would vote against. As a consequence, supporters of a fissban were divided between those who wanted Canada to withdraw the resolution rather than have a confrontation and lose the consensus of previous years, and those who argued that the international community should stick to its principles and not just collapse in silence when the current administration demands something different from what was agreed by previous administrations.

Identical to the resolution adopted by consensus in 2002 and 2003, L.34 emphasises the value of a treaty banning the production of fissile material in contributing to nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. It recalls the decision of the CD to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate such a treaty and urges it to establish a programme of work to enable fissban negotiations to commence. Both the EU and the NAC were divided on whether it would be better to withdraw the resolution or have the US openly vote against, though all but Britain voted in favour of the resolution.

The vote was 147 in favour, with only the US opposed. Israel, which has been reluctant about a fissban from the beginning, abstained, which came as no surprise, since it had been the US that persuaded Israel to allow the CD to convene negotiations in 1998 (which lasted only a few weeks due to CD problems). To the shock of many, the UK also abstained. In explanation, UK Ambassador John Freeman criticised the co-sponsors and said that "as currently worded, the resolution divides the international community". However, the UK remained "fully committed" to the FMCT and was committed to "appropriate verification" in light of changed circumstances.

By contrast, France voted in favour, while also expressing concern that the resolution had not taken into account developments during the past year. Ambassador François Rivasseau complained that concerns raised to try to avoid divisions that might have a deleterious effect on getting fissban negotiations started in the CD in 2005 had not been taken into account better. Unlike the UK, however, France voted in favour of the resolution to "demonstrate its support for a cut-off treaty in the CD". In the corridors, while many were divided about the political wisdom of pushing the resolution when it was clear the US intended to break consensus, many were also very critical of the UK for abstaining, arguing that it would have been wiser to have voted in favour and explained its objections, as France had done.

Among other explanations of vote, Russia was concerned that once again on this traditional consensus resolution there was a need for a vote. Anton Vassiliev confirmed that Russia was willing "to commence negotiations on the basis of a broad mandate". Russia's careful phrasing left open whether its criticism was directed towards the United States for breaking consensus or the resolution's sponsors for bringing the division into the open. Israel said it viewed the FMCT "in both regional and global contexts" and that "issues related to nuclear disarmament can be dealt with only after achieving lasting relations of peace and reconciliation…[and] overall regional security and stability. Noting recent developments with regard to "the misuse and un-checked dissemination of nuclear fuel cycle capabilities", Israel argued that "an overall priority in nonproliferation should be assigned to developing a new effective nonproliferation arrangement pertaining to the nuclear fuel cycle." Egypt argued that the mandate allowed for extending the scope to deal with nuclear materials, reiterating its position that it should also address stockpiles. Indonesia considered it unfortunate" that consensus was not reachable on L.34 since "verifying such a treaty is technically feasible and politically possible, and it is in everyone's core interests to make the treaty more than symbolic gesture". Indonesia considered that "the dangers posed by today's nuclear weapons necessitate prompt and vigorous action to dismantle arsenals and block the transfer, stockpiling and production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium as the fissile material needed to build nuclear weapons."

US Ambassador Jackie Sanders said the US supported negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty that would "establish a legally binding barrier [and] contribute to arms control and nonproliferation goals" but "the US has concluded that the treaty would not be effectively verifiable". Since both the title and the text of the resolution refer to a "quote 'internationally and effectively verifiable treaty' unquote" the US has had to vote against.

More later.

Back to the Top of the Page