Tag Archives: First Committee

Reflections on First Committee’s Debate on SALW

12 Nov

After a month of meetings, side-events, resolutions, discussions and arguments, by state delegations and NGO representatives, it seems like peace and quiet has returned to the United Nations (UN). The General Assembly (GA) First Committee on Disarmament and International Security has ended.

Looking back on the past month, I must say that I have mixed feelings. During First Committee, countries had time to share their concerns and standpoints on different disarmament issues. In my belief it is a good thing to discuss disarmament and security on a broad scale: every country can elaborate on their views and needs during the general and the thematic debates. I also believe that it is a good thing to have these meetings on a regular basis: decisions can be made, resolutions can be adopted and actions can be followed up on. These are the reasons why I think First Committee debates are needed and important but they are also the reasons I believe, that the way we organize these discussions limits the potential benefit of the work of First Committee. Due to the fact that the meetings are organized on a wide scale and for only a few days a year, country delegations try to squeeze in all of their concerns into a general and a few thematic statements, all of which are supposed to last no longer than 5 to 10 minutes (though this time limit was rarely honored). This results in countries being forced to choose to focus on a few subjects to address in First Committee and thus other security-related subjects may be pushed to the background with less than the attention they deserve.

This year, as part of my responsibilities for the First Committee Monitor organized by Reaching Critical Will, I focused my attention on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), a subject that is, in my view, very important to address. Everyone knows what SALW are and what they can do. It is the kind of weapon children learn to ‘use’ while playing with toy guns and later while playing videogames, laser games or paintball. People use SALW to protect themselves, to commit petty crimes but also to commit murders. SALW are easy to get your hands on and easy to use and are, therefore, the most functionally dangerous weapons in the world. In the United States more than 30 people are shot and killed every day. In South Africa the number is as high as 40 casualties a day.

During First Committee several delegations mentioned the specific problem with the use of SALW. They called SALW ‘the real weapons of mass destruction (WMD) of our time’ and stressed the need to work together to stop the illicit trafficking of SALW. The representative of Croatia emphasized that ‘small arms and light weapons are neither small nor light in their impact’ and called for a strong and united response to this challenge. Even though most delegations addressed SALW in some fashion, and even at times mentioned the UN’s Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (PoA), the topic was generally mentioned briefly and was overshadowed by several other disarmament issues, such as continued possession of nuclear weapons. On the one hand this makes sense given that these weapons, if ever used, would have an immense impact on the world’s population. Entire cities and populations can be wiped out by the use of one single nuclear weapon. So it is important to make sure that these weapons will not be further developed, tested and used. But, as I pointed out earlier, I also believe that SALW problems are important to address. I understand that it is much harder to attain the political will needed to control the trafficking and use of SALW than is the case with nuclear weapons, since the impact from the use of SALW is not immediately experienced by the entire world community. Nevertheless, even though entire cities or populations cannot be destroyed by a single use of SALW, such weapons are already used to wipe out segments of populations all over the world.

Looking at actions on draft resolutions, it was interesting to see that the first-ever Security Council (SC) resolution (2117) exclusively dedicated to the issue of SALW, which was hailed as a success by several delegations, got deleted from the GA resolution entitled, Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons and collecting them, before this resolution was adopted without a vote. The reason for this can be found in the fact that resolution 2117 was adopted by a vote of 14 in favor to none against, but with one important abstention of the Russian Federation. During First Committee it was decided that SALW resolutions should be decided by consensus; thus the progress made in the SC on the issue of SALW was not officially acknowledged by the GA resolution.

Contemplating the future, much needs to be done to tackle the problem of the illicit use and trafficking of SALW. Countries need not only talk about the dangers and effects of SALW but actually see them as another form of WMD. Only when the international community sees its real dangers and SALW are no longer seen as weapons with ‘minor’ effects, can the use of SALW be halted. SALW deserves, in my opinion, the same amount of attention as other WMD and more in-depth talks on efforts to curb illicit SALW are needed. In addition to this, countries such as the United States where everyone has the ‘right’ to own a gun, need to consider strong control legislation. The issue of SALW needs to be addressed internationally and then the same laws and obligations need to be applied in every country if real progress is to be made in the process to stop the illicit use and trafficking of SALW.

 

Marianne Rijke, Disarmament Fellow

Tags: , , ,

The Arms Trade Treaty at the First Committee General Debate: Views on Where to Go Next

16 Oct

One of the most anticipated items on the First Committee agenda this session is the future of the arms trade treaty (ATT) negotiations. As the July 2012 Diplomatic Conference ended without adoption of a consensus treaty, many delegations have come to this session of the First Committee hoping for a mandate to continue negotiations in 2013. 62 delegations, nearly every delegation that took the floor, referenced the ATT during this week’s general debate either expressing support for an additional Diplomatic Conference, underscoring the importance of adopting universal conventional arms trade regulations and lamenting the inconclusiveness of the July Conference, or reiterating the necessity of transparency and non-discrimination in the negotiation of the future ATT. Despite the varying views on how to move the process forward, the process must indeed move forward by capitalizing on the momentum of the summer’s negotiations. Nevertheless, building on the progress made requires improvement and strengthening of the draft treaty text and not merely maintenance of the status quo or, worse, a weakening of the text. As Ambassador Higgie of New Zealand noted, robust support for continuing the ATT process is crucial to the human and humanitarian dimensions of security and, as noted by the delegate of the Republic of Korea, states must engage in “effective deliberation in the First Committee for constructive alternatives.”

The general debate underscored the nuances in state positions regarding how the July negotiations were viewed as well as specific text suggestions that delegations seek to address in future deliberations. Furthermore, the interventions also highlighted states’ positions on how and under what circumstances negotiations should move forward.

Interventions by delegations this week illustrated how states viewed the July Conference and, ultimately, how such views will affect decisions on moving forward. Some delegations noted July as a “failure,” including the Chairman of the Committee, Ambassador Percaya of Indonesia, who called the “recent failure” of the ATT disappointing and the representative of Cameroon who noted that “the failure of the ATT makes things harder” in the context of international security concerns. The Ambassador of Costa Rica called the lack of consensus “a blow to peace and human rights.” Other delegations chose to focus more explicitly on the progress made in July and appealed to delegations to “continue to push ahead,” as suggested by the representative of Malaysia. Ambassador Adamson of the UK asserted, “I want to make absolutely clear that the Conference did not end in failure. To say it did ignores the huge progress that has been made towards our ultimate aim…” The general and widespread consensus, nonetheless, was a sense of deep disappointment over the inability to reach consensus over the summer, although somewhat tempered by hope for future negotiations.

Despite varying views on whether or not July was ultimately a “failure,” the vast majority of states expressed support for continuing the process through continued deliberations to adopt a treaty in “the near future.” Some chose to underscore specific items that remain contentious, including issues of scope, criteria and parameters, as well as inclusion of specific principles. For example, the representatives of CARICOM, Colombia, and Peru all called for inclusion of munitions in the scope of a future treaty. The representative of Colombia also appealed to states for a comprehensive list of activities to be covered, including brokering, financing, export, and import. The representative of South Africa warned against becoming “side-tracked” by extraneous issues such as production and possession. Discussion also arose related to the principles and criteria to be included in the ATT. The representatives of the Africa Group and the Non-Aligned Movement underscored that there must be “no undue restriction in the way of the sovereign right of states for self-defence,” while the ASEAN states highlighted that any ATT must ensure the rights of self-defense and territorial integrity. The Arab Group representative laid forth specific guidelines related to parameters of a future ATT noting, “Any criteria developed by the treaty to regulate arms exports must also be based on clear legal instruments…” Therefore, it is clear that such reiteration of state positions illustrates that many issues remained unresolved from July and will require further debate before adoption of a treaty.

In terms of the pathway forward, such a decision is expected to be taken in the coming weeks. The “co-authors” group of the original 2007 General Assembly Resolution on the ATT, composed of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Kenya, Japan, and the UK, announced their intention to submit a resolution at this session of the First Committee seeking a mandate for an additional Negotiating Conference in early 2013. Ambassador Adamson noted that the Resolution sets the timing for “a short, final, consensus-based conference to finalize the work of the treaty” stating that as some states asked for “more time” to consider the President’s draft text, that time should be given. The EU, France, Guatemala, Switzerland, Spain, Turkey, Portugal, and the US all supported a final conference in 2013 with negotiations based on the President’s draft text. However, other delegations chose to refer more loosely to the future ATT process. The representative of India said no treaty “should be rushed through” by an imposed timeline and the representative of Cuba noted that his delegations would “pursue discussions” on the ATT in a transparent manner.

While the issue of continuing discussion of the ATT was generally uncontested, the rules of procedure remain debatable. The representatives of Mexico and Norway rightly underscored the deadlock caused by the consensus rule in July. As the Ambassador of Norway noted, “We have seen the consensus format watering down or paralyzing important disarmament processes time and again.” Likewise, the Mexican delegation urged that delegations do not allow a small number of states to impede the entire process because of their own “political or economic considerations.” Holding hostage an entire process due to the demands of a few states is simply unacceptable and interpreting consensus as de facto veto power will seriously undermine, if not prevent, adoption of a robust ATT that seeks to have a concrete humanitarian impact. As the First Committee continues to debate the future of the ATT process, the requirement of consensus must continue to be debated such that a new conference does not yield the same unsatisfying and disappointing result that came in July.

For more information on the First Committee, see Reaching Critical Will.

–Katherine Prizeman

Tags: , , , , , ,