United Nations (UN)

General Debate of the UN First Committee

October 8-17, 2001

Disarmament Processes and Institutions

ASEAN: "ASEAN countries reiterate once again our support for the convening of the Fourth Special Session of the United nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament [SSOD IV]. We reiterate our deep concern over the lack of consensus on the deliberations held by the United nations Disarmament Commission in 1999 on the agenda and objectives [of SSOD IV]. ... We are greatly dismayed at the continued impasse in the Conference on Disarmament. ... It is our hope that the states concerned will demonstrate their commitment to the process of disarmament and exercise the political will to overcome this deadlock... ASEAN countries believe the expansion of the Conference on Disarmament is necessary..."

Brazil: "The year since the last First Committee has been a sombre one in the disarmament field. There are distressing signs of an increasing lack of interest from the major players towards progress within the multilateral framework. The continued paralysis of the Conference on Disarmament is an eloquent example of a gradual disengagement of key states and a disappearance of the motivation needed to push coordinated action in the disarmament arena."

Cambodia: "Cambodia supports the proposal for the convening of [SSOD IV]... The Conference on Disarmament...should resume its negotiations to overcome the paralysis it is facing and function adequately through a comprehensive programme of work..."

Canada: "It is...surely time to put the Conference on Disarmament back to work. In that institution, we have well-proven means to negotiate binding accords. Canadian and other CD Presidents have done their utmost to spur governments to joint action dealing with fissile material negotiations, nuclear disarmament and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. We have been very close to agreement on a program of valuable work. The time has come to agree and get moving."

CARICOM: "Our non-proliferation and disarmament agenda will not advance meaningfully until the inertia in the Conference on Disarmament is removed. It is disconcerting to receive year after year reports of the failure of this important body to agree on a programme of work... It is also disappointing that, in the debate of this Committee, there is rarely mention of the value in convening a Fourth Special Session devoted to Disarmament. Should we, then, conclude that political will is exhausted and we have lost our way? Recent events do not afford us that option. We should instead make good this opportunity to renew our collective commitment to both nuclear and conventional non-proliferation and disarmament. We welcome the contribution of the Disarmament Commission to this effort through its current deliberation on 'Ways and Means to Achieve Nuclear Disarmament' and on 'Practical Confidence-Building Measures in the Field of Conventional Arms'. We consider that this body can and should play a more integral supportive role as a deliberative forum within the disarmament infrastructure of this Organisation."

Chile: "Chile attaches great importance to the Conference on Disarmament as an instrument of the international community for creating better conditions of security for all the inhabitants of the planet. ... We therefore welcome the vital signs noted by Ambassador Camilo Reyes when, during his Chairmanship, he succeeded in appointing [three special coordinators]... We wish to reaffirm the position we expressed when we had the honour of chairing the Conference this year on the need to continue our efforts to unblock the Conference and not to allow to take root an attitude of abandonment that would seek to declare the Conference 'dead'. If the Conference did not exist, we would be working towards its creation."

Colombia: "It is an alarming sign that after three years of paralysis the Conference [on Disarmament] has not been able to work on issues that we all recognise as being substantive and of priority importance for international security. Its only achievement, in decision 1646 [on the appointment of three special coordinators], was to continue working in order to prevent the further deterioration of an organ that is of vital importance to all of us."

Czech Republic: "We stress the importance of approving the [CD's] programme of work...so that this sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum does not slip into irrelevance. ... As to the expansion of the Conference, we maintain our interest in becoming a fully-fledged member..."

European Union: "The appointment of three special coordinators [at the CD]...may contribute to improving the atmosphere within the Conference. Although limited in scope, this procedural decision might constitute the first step in a gradual process of working towards the adoption of a work programme. ... [T]he Union restates its view that the work of the CD's subsidiary bodies should begin without delay on the basis of mandates which are sufficiently pragmatic and broad to be the subject of an agreement and cover the FMCT, nuclear disarmament and the prevention of the arms race in outer space. Furthermore the EU would like to recall its attachment to the follow-up on the enlargement process of the [CD]..."

Ghana: "The nuclear-weapon states must move away from strategic doctrinal differences and get on with the business of negotiations aimed at ridding the world of these destructive weapons. Whether the multilateral disarmament machinery becomes productive or rusty and ineffective will largely depend on the willingness of these states to show commitment and flexibility in the Conference on Disarmament. ... For non-nuclear-weapon states, the UN Disarmament Commission offers us a platform to influence the disarmament machinery through its recommendations on various problems... We therefore take the opportunity to commend its current programme on seeking ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament, and identifying practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional rams. We believe any specific recommendations it makes on these items will help move the multilateral process forward."

India: "It is time that the necessary political will is displayed by those countries whose ambiguous positions have led the Conference on Disarmament to its current comatose state... Five years have passed without any negotiations, and prolonged discussions limited to procedural issues that are bound to remain inconclusive will weaken genuine multilateralism, painstakingly developed over a period of time."

Indonesia: "It is regrettable to note that during the past four years the Conference on Disarmament has not initiated negotiations on any issue and has not established any ad hoc committees. ... This stalemate has called into question its credibility as the sole multilateral negotiating body in this field. It also faces the prospect of being further marginalised. ... It should...be recognised that the multilateral character of this body has in the past clarified the complexities attendant upon disarmament, especially in its nuclear dimension, and facilitated arms limitation treaties. The challenge now is to reassert its primacy and its unique character. ... Indonesia and other non-aligned countries are committed to the convening of [SSOD IV]... We are gratified to note some forward movement in this regard, especially...regarding objectives and agenda."

Japan: "[I]t is critical for the Conference on Disarmament to continue its deliberations on its improved and more effective functioning next year in order to fulfil its role as the negotiating body on disarmament. The CD should consider significant reforms, including a review of its consensus rule which is, in our view, too strict and could discourage flexibility among member states. The reinvigoration of the CD is an essential key to the revitalisation of the multilateral disarmament process in its entirety."

Kenya: "As the sole multilateral firm for disarmament negotiations, the Conference [on Disarmament] cannot afford to keep losing time. ... We appreciate that during the 2001 session the Conference, in an attempt to find a way forward, appointed three special coordinators...to look into various aspects of its work. ... [I]n its report for this year, the Conference recommends the reappointment of the special coordinators as early as possible in its 2002 session. While such a step is welcome in principle, it must be borne in mind that this exercise is not real work and should therefore not be allowed to divert attention from substantive work. We realise that the paralysis in the Conference is due to a number of factors. These include the lack of political will on the part of some member states to negotiate on certain agenda items. ... The states concerned should however realise that their unwillingness to engage in negotiations will only deepen the crisis in the Conference."

Lithuania: "What a pity for the CD to haggle over the programme of work while turning a deaf ear to an issue of fissile materials which continue to pile up and can spread unchecked. ... A long overdue review of the Conference's agenda, revamping of its functioning, and the expansion of its membership, may well free the body of its 'Cold War' reflections. We do not believe that disarmament in Geneva has blown itself out. The events of September 11 have underlined the need for a forceful response from the Conference on Disarmament."

Republic of Macedonia: "The newly-emerging international resolve should be channelled to break the [CD] stalemate... The approach to the Conference's work is outmoded, suited to the past period of [the] Cold War...not to the age of cooperation, integration and globalisation. The Conference should, therefore, change its methods of work and become universal."

Malaysia: "[W]e continue to be dismayed at the lack of progress at the Conference on Disarmament... The impasse in the CD is a matter of serious concern to the international community. We would strongly urge the three special coordinators...to make every effort to break the impasse and move the negotiations forward. Together with the expansion of its membership and the improvement of the efficiency of its functioning, the Conference could make every effort and move to attain its objectives as soon as possible."

Mexico: "Mexico makes an urgent appeal to all states to overcome the paralysis pervading the Conference on Disarmament. The immobility is ethically unsustainable. The political will must reappear to tackle the disarmament agenda in the appropriate forum for the negotiation of issues that in the light of the present international situation must not be avoided. The future of international security will depend on the response to this appeal."

Myanmar (Burma): "Myanmar has consistently called for the convening of [SSOD IV]... The setbacks that we [have] encountere[d] in the last twelve months - failure of negotiations on the [BWC] Protocol..., lack of consensus in the Conference on Disarmament, and delay in entry into force of the CTBT - make more urgent the convening of the Special Session... This would enable us to review and assess our principles and priorities as well as the formats of negotiations and fora for our future disarmament agenda."

New Zealand: "[T]he security landscape is changing before our eyes. Unilateral tendencies are evident. ... A shake-up of institutionalised disarmament diplomacy may be occurring. ... Those of us who are determined to advance the multilateral agenda find our objectives constantly frustrated. ... [W]e had another conspicuous failure this year in the Conference on Disarmament. It seems to have lost its way and its purpose. The Conference has not adapted to today's world. As well as perpetuating the rigidities of another time, the group structures that operate within it enable some to take cover from accountability. The Conference's mandate as the sole forum for negotiations on disarmament has been challenged. The CD's claim to be multilateral is fundamentally flawed. The assumption that only a limited number of countries is capable of determining global negotiating priorities and outcome sis a nonsense. ... We cannot realistically hold the institution itself as being responsible for its failure, however. Accountability rests with its member governments. ... [I]t is regrettable that its prolonged failure to engage does not seem to cause any real concern in some capitals. ... A new approach to its programme of work, that does not seek to be so prescriptive in the mandates, should be tested. The priority should be to establish the subsidiary bodies, but to leave it to them to determine what they will address and the modalities of their mandates, whether it be through deliberations or negotiations. There are no risks in this option since the Conference is already so scrupulous in the exercise of consensus."

Pakistan: "The Conference on Disarmament...can continue to serve as an effective mechanism for multilateral nuclear and conventional disarmament. With the demonstration of some flexibility on all sides, agreement can be achieved on a work programme for the CD on the basis of the so-called Amorim proposal."

Russia: "We would like to draw your attention to an insufficiently effective use of the potential of the Conference on Disarmament in recent years. It is our firm intention to give, through collective efforts, an impetus to the work of this unique forum. Undoubtedly, this would serve our common interests. ... The multifaceted nature and urgency of disarmament and non-proliferation issues imply that the time has come to convene a Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament. We actively support the idea of holding such a session."

South Africa: "The inability of the Conference on Disarmament in successive years to undertake substantive work, the fact that the majority of First Committee resolutions do not enjoy the support of all member states and that the work of the Disarmament Commission is often ignored, are reasons for concern. Part of the problem is that these disarmament mechanism were created 23 years ago and do not reflect today's realities. Our institutions and mechanisms, their membership, financial implications and methods of work are in need of serious re-evaluation and overhaul."

Sri Lanka: "[The] international disarmament and arms control treaty system has been challenged in many ways. ... The most glaring victim of this retrograde trend is the Conference on Disarmament... This UN body, specially constituted for disarmament treaty making, has tied itself in knots into a stalemate primarily as a result of [the] strategic and tactical postures of some of its member states. ... Neither the spirit of the Millennium Declaration nor the solemn commitment at the NPT 2000 Conference has had any positive effect in triggering meaningful action in the CD. Sri Lanka is firmly convinced that the Conference on Disarmament should work towards the goals for which it was originally established. In this spirit...I accepted the responsibility entrusted to me...to coordinate the efforts of the CD to seek ways and means of ensuring...improved and effective functioning... It was clear that an overwhelming number of members of the Conference...desire, [are] in fact even ready, to change its rules of procedure... During our deliberations, several innovative ideas were also discussed as to how the Conference...could be productive pending commencement of full-fledged negotiations towards specific treaty regimes. My delegation expects this process of consultations to continue at the next session of the CD [and] to arrive at concrete decisions."

Sudan: "The First Committee should focus on the agenda established by the Final Document of the General Assembly special session on disarmament of 1978... The order of importance for disarmament in that document was nuclear weapons first, then conventional weapons. The Millennium Declaration had supported that approach. Sudan still supported convening a fourth special session on disarmament and noted with regret the complete lack of progress in the Conference on Disarmament."

Syria: "The convening of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament would enable the international community to assess implementation of the results of the first such session in 1978... The General Assembly should adopt a consensus resolution reflecting a true willingness to hold such a session as soon as possible."

Thailand: "[Thailand supports] the early launching [of SSOD IV]...with full participation by all member states of the United nations. ... We regret the ongoing deadlock in the CD... In spite of the current situation, Thailand remains a strong supporter of the expansion of the CD of which we would like to become a member."

© 2001 The Acronym Institute.