United Nations First Committee
UN First Committee 2005: Introduction
Back to the Main Page on the UN and Disarmament
Introduction by Rebecca Johnson, October 20, 2005
The 60th session of the UN First Committee (Disarmament and International
Security) is underway at the UN in New York, October 3 - November 3 2005,
chaired by Ambassador Choi Young-Jin, Permanent Representative of the
Republic of Korea to the United Nations.
Some 60 resolutions and draft decisions are before the First Committee,
and voting will start on November 24. As listed below,
they cover issues ranging from nuclear weapons and nuclear-weapon-free
zones, other WMD, conventional weaponry such as landmines, small arms
and light weapons (SALW), outer space security and weaponisation, regional
security and disarmament machinery. If adopted by majority, the resolutions
are transmitted for the UN General Assembly to vote on them. All member
states of the United Nations have the right to sponsor resolutions or
amendments and to vote. Despite intensive efforts to rationalise and modernise
the work of the First Committee, many resolutions appear year after year
in an atrophied form, with little or no updating. There are always a few,
however, that catch the eye, either because of political controversy or,
more rarely, because they contain constructive new ideas for moving disarmament
progress forward.
Among the most interesting issues to come to the fore at the 60th First
Committee are a US-sponsored resolution on compliance; nuclear disarmament,
especially a new resolution from Iran which is causing anxiety; increasing
the effectiveness of the First Committee; and boosting efforts to make
progress on disarmament negotiations that have been stymied by a small
number of states abusing the rule of consensus in multilateral disarmament
machinery, most notably the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD).
In addition, Russia has sponsored a new resolution on space security,
entitled "Measures
to promote transparency and confidence-building in outer space", which
it hopes will be adopted without a vote.
Boosting Disarmament Progress
The most controversial political issue this year concerned a draft resolution
on "initiating
work on priority disarmament and non-proliferation issues" that was
circulated by six representative middle power nations but in the end not
tabled. This draft, sponsored by Canada, Brazil, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand
and Sweden (the G-6) called for four open-ended ad hoc committees to be
convened under First Committee auspices but in Geneva to "negotiate" on
a fissile material treaty and on security assurances from the nuclear
to the non-nuclear states, and to "deal with" the issues of nuclear disarmament
and "prevention of an arms race in outer space" (PAROS). The proposal
was clearly intended not to undermine the CD but to exert pressure to
get the CD working, since the draft made clear that these committees were
to be convened "pending agreement on a Conference on Disarmament programme
of work" on these four issues, which CD ambassadors in the recent past
had identified as the priorities.
Even so, the three Western nuclear weapon states conducted demarches
to the governments of the six initiators and tried to lobby NATO and EU
members and a number of countries that wanted to support the proposal.
In a nuclear-weapon-based alliance that is becoming increasingly familiar,
the P-5 were vociferously joined in their opposition to the jump-start
initiative by India and Pakistan (and no doubt by Israel as well, although
it typically kept a low profile), an irony that did not escape notice,
since the key protagonists in obstructing attempts to get a CD work programme
over the past decade have also been drawn from this nuclear-weapon possessing
pool. As a US
brief sent to capitals and a number of UN delegations illustrates,
a battery of arguments was used to scare First Committee members with
the threat that the initiative would destroy the CD, the First Committee
and, to listen to some of the wilder rhetoric, diplomatic civilisation
as we know it.
Though most of the arguments were far from convincing, the N-6 decided
to withdraw their proposal for this year, in large part in deference to
requests from the six designated presidents of the CD for 2006 (Poland,
Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Senegal and Slovakia). These six ambassadors,
who will serve for around a month each, are aiming to get agreement on
a joint initiative to try to get the CD to at least discuss the major
substantive issues next year, though most continue to despair of the possibility
of getting a work programme that would permit the CD to begin negotiating
in earnest. In withdrawing their proposal for ad hoc committees, the N-6
gave the CD notice that the proposal could be put back on the First Committee
table in 2006 if sufficient progress is not made to address these important
issues during the CD's 2006 session.
Improving the effectiveness of the First Committee
Building on the ground-breaking work of last
year's First Committee Chair, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico,
Ambassador Choi has increased the level of openness and interactivity
in debates on thematic issues, both among states and, in a long overdue
step, with participation from civil society, including presentations from
disarmament educators, Dr Kathleen Sullivan and Dr Peter Lucas, at the
First Committee's 'interactive session' on disarmament and non-proliferation
education, an issue that has been strongly promoted by a number of states,
most notably Japan, Mexico and New Zealand.
Even so, long shadows have been thrown by the failure of the 2005 NPT
Review Conference and the US insistence on deteting all references to
disarmament from the Millennium statement of the World Summit. As a consequence,
the mood at the First Committee is rather flat and subdued, with many
states admitting that they do not think progress can be made on any of
the most important issues until there is a change in US attitudes towards
multilateralism and international treaties, laws and mutually-applied
controls. They also note that the counter-productive US posture is providing
cover for other states that prefer to see a weak United Nations and ineffective
international security instruments and measures, so that they can continue
to sell arms or pursue national military objectives with relative impunity.
Nuclear Disarmament and Iran's Challenge
In addition to the resolution on the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which the US is once again expected
to oppose, five key resolutions (and a large number of others) deal with
nuclear disarmament issues. As in past years, Japan sponsors one based
closely on the NPT, which is now entitled "Renewed
determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons". Since
1998, the New Agenda Coalition has sponsored a challenging call for systematic
progress to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. Now entitled "Towards
a nuclear-free world: Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament",
the NAC resolution focuses (as it did in 2004) on the essential principles
underlying the plan of action for nuclear disarmament agreed by NPT parties
at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. A traditional omnibus resolution promoting
the long-time call of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) for a time-bound
framework for nuclear disarmament is sponsored (as in past years)
by Myanmar (Burma). And there is also Malaysia's
resolution which follows up on the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International
Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
and calls for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
This year, in an unexpected move in its diplomatic chess contest over
its nuclear fuel cycle plans with the IAEA,
UN, EU-3 and especially the United States, Iran has sponsored a new
resolution, lengthily entitled "Follow
up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed in the 1995 and 2000 Review
Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons".
This resolution has caused consternation largely because many states
suspect Iran's motives for putting it forward in this way and at this
time. While the resolution's text might have attracted significant support
in a different context, few UN delegations want to appear to endorse Iran's
nuclear policies by voting in favour of such a resolution under the present
circumstances and at such a sensitive time, when the UN Security Council
may soon be considering the IAEA's report. There is also concern that
by using the nuclear disarmament issue in this way, Iran may be playing
into US hands, with the risk that it undermines other nuclear disarmament
resolutions. The reverse could also operate, as states that want to demonstrate
their opposition to Iran's uranium programme by voting against its resolution
will need to demonstrate that they are not opposed to the implementation
of the obligations agreed to in 1995 and 2000. To do this, Western states
- including those with nuclear weapons - should at the very least vote
in favour of the nuclear disarmament resolutions sponsored by Japan and
the New Agenda Coalition, and not risk muddying the waters further with
fence-sitting abstentions.
Iran's resolution has been designed to deflect attention from the controversy
over its uranium enrichment programme and capture some of the anger among
non-nuclear weapon states about developments by the major nuclear powers,
particularly the emerging US nuclear posture and its support for new nuclear
weapons and missions. It reiterates long-standing NAM decisions and includes
reaffirmation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East. It expresses
concern about the failure of the 2005 Review
Conference and places particular emphasis on some of the practical
steps that the nuclear-weapon states agreed to undertake as part of the
final document of the 2000 Review Conference.
In operational paragraph (OP) 4, it presents the proposal made by Iran's
recently-elected President Ahmadinejad to the General Assembly, for the
establishment of "an ad hoc committee of the General Assembly in 2006
to hold three one-week sessions to review the implementation of the nuclear
disarmament obligations" from 1995 and 2000.
Compliance
The very first resolution to be submitted was from the United States,
entitled "Compliance
with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements".
This raises concerns about non-compliance, welcomes Libya's decision to
"come back into compliance with its non-proliferation obligations and
commitments and commends its approach to those States not currently in
compliance with their obligations". It urges all states to implement and
fully comply with their obligations and calls on "all Member states to
take concerted action to ensure that all States comply with their existing
arms limitation, non-proliferation and disarmament agreements and to hold
those not in compliance with such agreements accountable for their non-compliance".
Finally, without specifically naming Iran, North Korea, or UN
Security Council Resolution 1540 on WMD, the US resolution "endorses
efforts by the United Nations, its organs and other international organizations
to take action to prevent serious damage to international security and
stability arising from non-compliance by States with their existing arms
limitation, non-proliferation and disarmament obligations".
The US is lobbying hard for this resolution to be adopted without a vote,
but a number of states are concerned that the US wants to use the resolution
to undermine multilateral and non-discriminatory international approaches,
including verification and treaties. Some are trying to get more explicit
references to international law and the UN Charter into the resolution;
there are concerns that without explicit references to treaties such as
the NPT, CWC and BTWC (at the very least), the resolution could be intended
to act as a carte blanche for unilateral and club-of-the-willing approaches
such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and export controls
coordinated by suppliers' cartels.
Transparency and Confidence-Building in Outer Space
Egypt and Sri Lanka have once again co-sponsored their traditional resolution
on Prevention
of an arms race in outer space, which is identical to last year's
text, which was overwhelmingly passed, with abstentions from the United
States and Israel. Fearing to lose support or provoke a vote against,
the co-sponsors have resisted suggestions in recent years to update or
strengthen the resolution. Emphasising its support for the traditional
PAROS resolution, Russia has now taken the issue cautiously forward with
a new resolution to canvass states' views about enhancing space security.
Entitled "Measures
to promote transparency and confidence-building in outer space", Russia's
resolution merely reaffirms that preventing an arms race in outer space
"would eliminate a serious threat to international peace and security"
and requests UN Member States to "inform the Secretary-General... of their
views concerning the advisability of the further formulation of international
measures to promote transparency and confidence-building in space activities,
aimed at advancing the cause of peace, security, international cooperation
and the prevention of an arms race in outer space".
Resolutions Index
Latest update October 30, 2005
Note: the name of the state that introduced the resolution is
in square brackets. Where separate votes were taken on parts of a resolution,
PP refers to preambular paragraph and OP refers to operative paragraph.
Votes are given as: for-against-abstention
The results of further votes will be added as we receive them.
Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Weapons, Missiles and Outer Space
Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
Other Weapons of Mass Destruction
Outer Space (Disarmament Aspects)
Conventional Weapons
Regional Disarmament & Security
Other Disarmament Measures and International Security
Disarmament Machinery
Sources:
Back to the Top of the Page
© 2005 The Acronym Institute.
|
