James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction with training & analysis

Research Story of the Week

Related link: U.N. Study on Disarmament and Nonproliferation Education Presented to the General Assembly

U.N. First Committee Grapples with Peace and Security Issues

First Committee Room at the U.N. Related link: U.N. Study on Disarmament and Nonproliferation Education Presented to the General Assembly

By Maiko Tamagawa, Evren Sarac, and Jean du Preez

Note: the files linked in the document below are in PDF format.

The First Committee of the 57th United Nations General Assembly started its 2002 session amid growing international skepticism about the continued relevance of multilateral nonproliferation, disarmament, and arms control in the face of narrow self interests, unilateralism, and a general lack of political will. Concerned about the setback in multilateralism, many First Committee delegations including Malaysia, Mongolia and New Zealand called for a reaffirmation of multilateral approaches to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation in particular. They also stressed the need to ensure that these approaches be more adaptive to the changing dynamics of international peace and security. In this regard, it is notable that South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement States presented a draft resolution "Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation" following a similar resolution introduced by the 2001 First Committee Chairman. This draft resolution specifically emphasizes "multilateralism as the core principle in resolving disarmament and non-proliferation concerns" and requests the Parties to the "relevant instruments on weapons of mass destruction to consult and cooperate among themselves in resolving their concerns with regard to cases of non-compliance as well as on their implementation, in accordance with the procedures defined in those instruments, and refrain from resorting or threatening to resort to unilateral actions or directing unverified non-compliance accusations against one another, to resolve their concerns." Ireland, speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) countries (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden) underlined the importance of the multilateral approach to disarmament, particularly in light of the danger of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. These countries refer to the last year's attacks as "a wake-up call" that further emphasized the "importance of the total elimination of nuclear weapons." South Africa added that despite worldwide attention on terrorism and the horrific consequences of the use of weapons of mass destruction, "the reality that sustainable initiatives to protect international peace and security dependent on the collective participation of the international community, appears to escape us."

A sense of apathy about the challenges facing the nonproliferation and disarmament regime shadowed the general debate segment of the Committee's work. Although some positive remarks were made about developments since the last General Assembly session, most statements focused on the challenges and failures. Many statements reflected upon the international community's concerns over the present status of the international nonproliferation and disarmament regime, in particular given the tendency to take unilateral or plulilateral action to address the challenges to the regime. Almost all delegations discussed weapons of mass destruction and related issues. To this end, many delegations addressed the importance of a strengthened review process for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in light of the outcome of the 2000 Review Conference. They noted the continued failure by the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to start its work program, including the need to negotiate a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space and the establishment of a subsidiary organ tasked with nuclear disarmament. Delegations also emphasized the importance of the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the need to continue to enhance the effective implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and the value of ongoing efforts to deal with the issues of missiles, including ballistic missiles. Issues related to conventional weapons, in particular small arms and landmines were again covered by almost all delegations Very few new issues were identified and the debate followed a similar pattern as last year's debate. The New Agenda countries, however, announced their intention to submit a new draft resolution on tactical nuclear weapons. South Africa provided detailed proposals on how to strengthen the BWC, while the United States and the Russian Federation indicated that they will present a resolution welcoming the Moscow Treaty. Cuba's announcement that it will accede to the NPT and ratify the Tlatelolco nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) treaty as well as the announcement by the five Central Asian States that they reached agreement on the text of a treaty establishing a NWFZ in Central Asia were welcomed widely and featured prominently in most statements.

Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament

Many delegations expressed general concern over the slow progress made on nuclear disarmament and the possible negative consequences of decisions by some nuclear weapon states. Specifically, several delegations made references to the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review and its negative implications for the nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation regime, in particular the NPT. Malaysia, reflecting the views of many, stated that the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review is a "clear rejection of the 13 steps agreed upon by the nuclear weapon states at the 2000 NPT Review Conference" and it "would deal a serious blow to the viability of the NPT." Mexico added, "at precisely the time when we should be redoubling our efforts to achieve the objective of a nuclear-weapon free world, quite on the contrary, we have seen the emergence of disturbing doctrines that posit new uses for such [nuclear] weapons." Cuba mentioned that the U.S. Posture Review increased the potential use of nuclear weapons--listing countries that do not possess such weapons among the possible targets--and tried to legitimize the indefinite possession of those weapons. Iran stated that the emergence of new doctrines based on pre-emption and enlarging the scope of the use of nuclear weapons, as defined in the Review, undermines the very foundations of the nonproliferation regime. The Iranian delegate stated, "Any military doctrine is incompatible with the integrity and promotion of the international non-proliferation regime that my country has been committed to for the past thirty-five years." Commenting on the impact of the Nuclear Posture Review on the NPT review process, Sri Lanka stated, "it will be fundamentally important to maintain, the moratorium on nuclear test explosions, uphold the principles of irreversibility and diminishing role of nuclear weapons in security policies as well as to reaffirm security policies given by nuclear weapons States." Sri Lanka is one of several States sponsoring a draft resolution on the "Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapons States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons."

Expressing concern over the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament and reiterating the traditional position of the Non-Aligned Countries, Nepal stated, "(t)he ultimate security from nuclear weapons lies in their total elimination. We therefore urge all declared and undeclared powers to show commitment and resolve to get rid of their nuclear arsenals within a technically feasible time frame." Zambia called on the "five nuclear weapon states to take immediate steps to achieve the complete elimination of nuclear arsenals" and stated that "[u]nfortunately, there continues to be alarming signs of the continued development of new generations of nuclear weapons." Nigeria added: [t]oday a few countries have, between them, enough nuclear-weapon capability to destroy the world and annihilate humankind several times over, including themselves. New strategic doctrines are being proposed or embarked upon that will not improve the quality of human life but spark arms race[s] whose only relevance is the development or acquisition of new generation[s] of weapons to enable man to kill one, many or a mass of his kind. We understand the immense feeling of power that possession of nuclear weapons accords to nuclear weapon states over non-nuclear weapon states. We also understand the danger it portends for both.

While Japan regarded the outcome of the 2002 NPT Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) as a good start in the strengthened NPT review process leading up to the 2005 Review Conference and indicated that it would again submit a draft resolution, "A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons." South Africa expressed its disappointment at the lack of substantive interaction during the PrepCom and emphasized the need to work on this issue at the second PrepCom and at future meetings. Many States emphasized the importance of the 13 practical steps related to nuclear disarmament included in the 2000 NPT Review Conference Final Document. Indonesia, expressing the sentiments of many developing countries, emphasized that the implementation of the 13 steps is the "criteria to determine progress in fulfilling nuclear disarmament obligations and must be based upon genuine disarmament which requires codification, transparency, accountability and verification." China expressed its support for the full implementation of the 13 practical disarmament steps and said it is ready to contribute to the NPT Review Process. Ireland, on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, stated that the ongoing NPT Preparatory Committee process provides a facilitating framework and articulated the need to take agreed practical steps. As a contribution to the strengthened review process, Ireland announced that the New Agenda will present a draft resolution "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda." This draft resolution builds on previous NAC resolutions as well as on the 13 practical steps, but clearly represents an attempt by the NAC to set a "new agenda" for the 2005 NPT Review Conference. Canada stressed the importance of the reporting requirement and indicated that it is now consulting with interested States Parties with a view to addressing this subject in future preparations for the 2005 Review Conference.

Ecuador, Mongolia, Norway, Switzerland, and others expressed their concerns over the particular threat posed by tactical nuclear weapons. New Zealand stated, "short-range tactical nuclear weapons pose a greater threat than strategic weapons, as there is a real risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be launched by accident or in the confusion of war, with no time available for communication between opposing sides." Referring to the broader role of nuclear weapons, including the development of new types of nuclear weapons and new rationalizations for their use, Ireland on behalf of the New Agenda countries submitted a draft resolution "Reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons." It includes a call for the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons to be a high priority and for the reduction to be carried out in a transparent, verifiable, and irreversible manner. The resolution also calls for a further reduction in the operational status of tactical nuclear weapons so that the likelihood of their use is made more remote.

Various opinions were voiced about the recently agreed U.S.-Russian Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, the so-called Moscow Treaty. The United States said the First Committee meets at a time of "great promise" since the two states with "by far largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons" had decided to reduce their nuclear forces "dramatically." It emphasized that the treaty established a Consultative Group of Strategic Security, with the participation of the foreign and defense ministers of the two countries, which would permit them to continue to explore ways to enhance transparency and predictability. The Russian Federation also referred to this in its statement and said it plans to create a similar mechanism with France. The U.S. and Russian sense of optimism about the intended nuclear arms reductions is reflected in their new joint resolution "Bilateral strategic nuclear arms reduction and the new strategic framework" in which they "applaud" the agreement whereby each country will reduce its nuclear arsenal to a number that does not exceed 1,700 to 2,000 as specified in the Moscow Treaty. China also "applauded" the new treaty and expressed its hope that it will continue to drastically reduce and destroy nuclear weapons in a "verifiable and irreversible" way. Japan "highly valued" the Moscow Treaty and expected that this treaty should serve as an important step toward nuclear disarmament efforts. Brazil and South Africa were two of the less optimistic states about the Moscow Treaty. These delegations mentioned that, although the treaty could produce some significant results, real disarmament has not been fully addressed as the reductions in warheads "cannot be a substitute for irreversible cuts in nuclear arsenals in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons." Although the Republic of Korea welcomed the Moscow Treaty, they noted that it should be based on the principles of irreversibility, transparency, and verifiability. In the same context, Malaysia stressed that the treaty would not be able to replace the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Cuba's decision to accede to the NPT and to the Treaty of Tlatelolco received wide support. South Africa said, "Cuba's decision emphasizes the inter-relationship of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and of the fact that by staying outside the Treaty, States are inhibiting not only the achievement of the international community's goal in this regard, but also the goals of the masses of ordinary people around the world." Canada used the opportunity to call on "India, Israel and Pakistan, still outside the Treaty, to join." Some other countries, including Denmark (on behalf of the EU), also used the opportunity to encourage those three states to accede to the treaty, but without naming specific states. Cuba noted that joining the treaty indicates its "commitment to an effective disarmament process" and that it "hopes that all nuclear weapons will be totally eliminated under strict international verification."

While expressing concern that several key states have not yet signed or ratified the CTBT, many states noted the encouraging progress achieved this year. They supported the Joint Ministerial Declaration in support of the CTBT released by 18 foreign ministers on 14 September 2002, initiated by Australia, Japan, and the Netherlands. Canada, Denmark, Japan, and Norway highlighted the developed capabilities of the international monitoring system (IMS) while Mexico announced its intention to present a draft resolution "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty" in coordination with Australia and the Netherlands. China said it was carrying out domestic preparations for CTBT implementation and was ready to work with the international community to facilitate its early entry into force. Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, endorsed the outcome of the Conference on Measures to Facilitate the Entry into Force of the CTBT and called upon all states to ratify the CTBT. A number of other countries such as Canada, Norway, Japan, and Denmark mentioned the importance of developing the CTBT verification regime.

Conference on Disarmament (CD)

Most states expressed frustration over the fact that the CD in 2002 again failed to agree on a Program of Work despite new diplomatic efforts and leadership shown by several CD members. Referring to the "Five Ambassadors" initiative--launched by the Ambassadors of Algeria, Belgium, Chile, Sweden, and Colombia--Japan noticed the "historic cross-group effort" to achieve agreement on a Program of Work. It stressed the urgent need to break the current stalemate and emphasized that even during the closing period, some form of progress should be brought about through various efforts in Geneva as well as in the capitals of member States of the Conference. Japan also mentioned that there was popular support for the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), emphasized the importance of an FMCT as a means to prevent nuclear/radiological terrorism, and called for an early start of negotiation of the treaty. Australia and Mongolia hoped that the nuclear weapon states would declare a moratorium on the production of weapons grade fissile materials pending the negotiation of an FMCT. The United States said, "the effort by some CD members" to link the negotiation of an FMCT to unrelated issues is "a perversion of the consensus role of the Conference." On the other hand, China said it expected other countries to respond positively to the "considerable flexibility" it has shown. Mexico referred to the draft New Agenda resolution "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda" and stated that the CD should include in its Program of Work "unequivocally" the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament. Several countries also raised the issue of CD expansion. Croatia, highlighting that it has been on the waiting list for 10 years, called on CD members to "look closely" at the issue. In a similar context, Myanmar spoke of the need to grant membership to Thailand and the Philippines. New Zealand criticized the CD for its exclusion of non-governmental organization (NGOs) and called for broader membership open to civil society.

China emphasized the importance of preventing a new arms race in outer space (PAROS). It called for the reestablishment of the relevant Ad Hoc Committee and negotiations on an international legal instrument on PAROS at an early date. Towards that goal, China referred to the CD a working paper it had submitted, together with the Russian Federation and some other countries, entitled Possible Elements for a future International Legal Agreement on the Prevention of the Deployment of Weapons in Outer Space, and the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects. The Russian Federation stated its willingness to take additional measures on transparency and confidence-building in outer-space in order to provide early notification of forthcoming space launches. Ireland, speaking on behalf of the NAC countries, also expressed its desire to prevent an arms race in outer space and called on the CD to re-establish an ad hoc committee to deal with this issue. Egypt expressed its continued commitment to PAROS and said that it is Egypt's intention to present a resolution on this issue to the First Committee. Egypt, China, and Russia, together with 23 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, submitted a draft resolution "Prevention of an arms race in outer space." Egypt also stated that it is now engaged in consultations among interested states to develop the resolution with the broadest support for it. Canada, Algeria, Norway, Nigeria, the DPRK, and Nepal are among those countries that spoke in support of PAROS in their statements.

With regard to NWFZs, most States welcomed the agreement among the five Central Asian States (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) to establish a NWFZ in the region. Kazakhstan, as a country that experienced the "negative power of nuclear weapons" stated, "the establishment of the nuclear-weapon-free zones throughout the world is compatible with the integrity and sustainability of the international non-proliferation regime." The five Central Asian countries subsequently submitted a draft resolution "Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia" in which they call for the "completion of the legal basis" of the zone and for continued dialogue with the five nuclear weapons States. Having assisted the negotiations, Japan was particularly pleased with the agreement and looked forward to the signing of the treaty in the near future. Mongolia expressed its consistent support for existing and the establishment of new NWFZs and stated that it introduced a number of concrete steps to institutionalize its own nuclear-weapon-free status. Mongolia submitted a draft resolution "Mongolia's international security and nuclear-weapon-free status" to this effect. Mexico also supported the consolidation of the status of Mongolia as a nuclear-weapon-free State. New Zealand highlighted its 1987 domestic legislation declaring its territory and waters a NWFZ, and supported Brazil's initiative to link the already established NWFZs in the Southern Hemisphere "to create a Southern Hemisphere free of nuclear weapons." To this end, Brazil and New Zealand, together with 44 other States, submitted their traditional draft resolution "Nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas." Nigeria reaffirmed its strong support for the establishment of NWFZs "on the basis of agreements freely arrived at among the states concerned" and its commitment to the African Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. Indonesia noted that the Bangkok Treaty, as in the case of the Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, and Pelindaba treaties, could become effective only with the participation of all nuclear weapon States. It stated that "hopefully the nuclear powers will ratify the Protocol in the foreseeable future so that the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone will become fully operable." Cuba reaffirmed that it is now taking the necessary domestic steps to ratify the Treaty for the prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean. A strong call was also made for the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East. Almost all Middle Eastern delegations stated their willingness to see the region free from weapons of mass destruction. In this regard, Egypt submitted its draft resolution "Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East."

Missiles and the Draft International Code of Conduct against the Proliferation of Ballistic Missiles

The report of the UN Panel of Governmental Experts on missile in all its aspects (prepared by a governmental panel of experts and submitted to the General Assembly) received both positive and negative responses. Egypt stressed, "despite any misgivings concerning the brevity of the recommendation section of the report," the report must be viewed as an initial multilateral effort by the United Nations to address a very complex and contentious issue. India, Indonesia, and Mexico spoke in support of the UN system, stressing that the international norms against the proliferation of missiles should be elaborated within a multilateral, universal, and non-discriminatory framework.

On the other hand, South Africa expressed its disappointment that the panel failed to "agree on a single recommendation for a course of action and [that it] couldn't even agree on what the nature of the problem was." Iran, which initiated the establishment of the panel of experts, welcomed the report and called it "a sound basis for further work (as it prepares) the ground for more detailed and action orientated recommendations." As a follow-up to the panel's report, Iran submitted a draft resolution "Missiles" in which it calls for another panel to "further explore the issue of missile in all its aspects" and to submit a report to the 59th session of the General Assembly (2004). Similarly, States expressed different views on the Draft International Code of Conduct against the Proliferation of Ballistic Missiles. Japan and Denmark (on behalf of the European Union) emphasized the urgent need for globally accepted norms and practices in support of ballistic missile nonproliferation and urged all countries to join the International Code of Conduct. Egypt stated that efforts to consider the Code "always fell short of the necessary requirements of a multilateral exercise." Both Egypt and South Africa (MTCR member) stressed that the Code's credibility and success would depend on the degree to which the final draft would be able to attract support especially from those states possessing ballistic missiles. It also noted the importance of including a disarmament goal. Indonesia stressed the need to explore modalities other than the Global Control System and the draft International Code of Conduct to combat missile proliferation.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

China stated that it completed the legal procedure for the entry into force of the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreements between it and the IAEA, being the first among the five nuclear weapons States to do so. China had also placed its export control of missiles and related technology, as well as missile-related dual-use items and technologies, into a legal framework. China also stated that it would soon promulgate administrative rules to establish a comprehensive system of export controls over sensitive items in the nuclear, biological, chemical and missile fields. The Republic of Korea also referred to the IAEA as a fundamental pillar of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and stated that it fully supports the programs of the IAEA designed to safeguard nuclear materials. It further stated that the government of the Republic of Korea is taking the necessary domestic measures for the implementation of the Additional Protocol. The delegation urged the DPRK to fully cooperate with the IAEA in the implementation of its obligations under the NPT.

Australia said that it is helping a number of countries with ratification and implementation of the Additional Protocols. It applauded the recent efforts of the Agency to counter the threat of nuclear terrorism through the work done on the security and physical protection of nuclear material and facilities. It further stated that currently it is important to maintain the momentum of the IAEA's work. Australia appealed for the legal and technical group considering an amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials to work constructively to achieve a consensus text that would strengthen the Convention. Thailand expressed its satisfaction that the IAEA reemphasized the importance of international cooperation in nuclear radiation, transport, and waste safety; nuclear verification; and security of materials. It stated that developing countries should have access to technical assistance so that they could ensure greater safety in the development of research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Japan expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the IAEA to upgrade worldwide protection against acts of terrorism involving nuclear and other radioactive materials. It stated that Japan has pledged to contribute $500,000 to the special fund set up for the implementation of the IAEA's "Action Plan for Protection against Nuclear Terrorism." Denmark on behalf of the European Union referred to the Additional Protocol as an integral part of the IAEA safeguards system and urged concerned countries to conclude and implement an Additional Protocol in the immediate future.

Compliance Issues

Although widely expected to be an issue of some debate, very few delegations directly referred to Iraq in their statements. While South Africa welcomed the decision by Iraq to unconditionally allow the UN and IAEA inspections, Japan called for compliance with all relevant Security Council resolution, immediate and unconditional inspections, and the disposal of all weapons of mass destruction. Egypt considered Iraq's invitation to UN inspectors to resume their inspections "a positive step" and expressed the hope that this would lead to further "steps towards the lifting of sanctions that were imposed on Iraq over a decade ago." Australia called for "firm action" by the Security Council and stated that "[w]e must remember that our goal remains disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Apart from addressing the threat to international security posed by Iraq, we must avoid creating a precedent which other would-be proliferators might be tempted to exploit." The United Arab Emirates urged full co-operation from Iraq "to prevent a third world war." Switzerland supported the efforts of the United Nations on this matter and called for the cooperation of all states for a peaceful resolution. Nepal's statement implicitly referred to Iraq's noncompliance, stating that "...some (states) have sought these weapons overtly or covertly, undermining the objective of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the larger goal of complete nuclear disarmament." UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala observed, "the sooner the world community can verify Iraq's compliance with its disarmament and other obligations... the sooner efforts can proceed to implement another goal ... the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East." Iraq, exercising its right of reply, stated that it is "complying, letting UN inspectors in. It is the US who has opposed the return of the inspectors."

Turning to noncompliance by the DPRK, the Republic of Korea urged the DPRK to provide without further delay full cooperation with the IAEA to implement its safeguards obligations under the NPT and the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework. Japan highlighted the Pyongyang Declaration signed between the DPRK and Japan in September 2002. In the Declaration, both sides confirmed, "for an overall resolution of the nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula, they would comply with all related international agreements." The DPRK insisted that the United States should withdraw its hostile policy towards the DPRK: "If the United States stops its hostile policy towards the DPRK and implements in good faith the Agreed Framework for proper construction of the LWRs, the issue of safeguards will be resolved accordingly."

Without referring to any country in particular, the United States stated that the "international community must use all means at its disposal to ensure not just that key multilateral arms control treaties are complied with, but also that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists and state sponsors of terrorist." To this end, the United States indicated its intention to submit a draft resolution, "Compliance with arms limitation and disarmament and non-proliferation agreements," that would "reiterate the value the international community places on compliance with arms control and non-proliferation regimes".

Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

Many states, including Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Jordan, Mexico, Myanmar (for ASEAN), Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan Ukraine, Jamaica (for the Caribbean Community), Russia, Laos, Bahrain, and Norway were pessimistic about the prospect of continued negotiations on a BWC Verification Protocol. Many urged flexibility in the search for a mechanism that would enable BWC States Parties to overcome the current impasse. Thailand stated that the "failure of the 5th Review Conference of the BWC last November to produce substantive results has potentially placed the BWC regime in jeopardy." South Africa stressed that it would be important for the States Parties "not to allow a situation where no further work is done to enhance the implementation of the BWC." In this context, South Africa presented a comprehensive and concrete proposal for the reconvened meeting of the BWC Review Conference. This included:

• the rapid conclusion of the 2001 Review Conference's work without raising divisive issues where it is known that agreement will not be possible;
• no reference be made to the BWC Ad Hoc Group and its draft Protocol in the Conference's final document;
• agreement to establish a Group(s) of Experts to deal with a limited and non-exhaustive list of specific issues related to the BWC and to reach agreement on proposals to enhance the implementation of the BWC;
• annual meetings of the Group(s) of Experts;
• annual meetings of the States Parties for a few days to consider the work of the Group(s); and
• possible strengthening of the UN Secretariat in the area of biological weapons to assist States Parties, especially from developing countries.

Cuba restated the validity of the Ad Hoc Expert Group mandate and called on the United States "to discontinue their insistent attempts of overseeing so many years of effort by the international community." India stated, "[w]hile national implementation measures and certain group efforts may be worth pursuing, they cannot substitute for meaningful multilateral efforts to strengthen the Convention." It hoped that the resumed Review Conference "can be saved from failure by at least reaching agreement on a modest follow up work in the truly multilateral context." China expressed its wish to work with other parties in a constructive manner to seek consensus on the specific mechanism and measures for strengthening the effectiveness of the Convention, so that the Conference could achieve concrete results. The United States remained silent on the issue of calling for a strengthened BWC, but stressed compliance with its provisions. The International Committee of the Red Cross recalled its "rare appeal" to governments, scientists, and industry on "Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity" to ensure that biotechnology would never be put to hostile uses and urged States to adopt a high-level political declaration on it. Hungary, on behalf of the Chairman of the BWC Ad Hoc Group, submitted its traditional draft decision "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction" in which it requests the UN Secretariat to provide assistance to the States Parties for the convening of the reconvened Fifth Review Conference in November 2002.

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

Although a number of delegations referred to the CWC, these statements were not of a substantive nature. Many States, such as China, Denmark, Mongolia, New Zealand, Norway, Senegal, South Africa, and Vietnam, expressed their concerns over institutional challenges to the OPCW, which have led to a lack of focus on the core business of the OPCW. South Africa and Canada were encouraged by the fact that the CWC now has 146 parties, but Canada called for the First Committee to give increased support to the OPCW to enable it to do verification and inspection properly. The United States said the OPCW, now under new leadership, can effectively enforce international norms with respect to chemical weapons. It also announced that it has decided to upgrade its diplomatic representation at the OPCW in The Hague and that it would make "a voluntary contribution to the organization of some $2 million."

Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education

India, Japan, Mexico, Mongolia, and New Zealand showed their support to the UN Experts Group on Disarmament and Nonproliferation Education. Mexico stated its intention to submit a draft resolution on "The report of the Group of Experts on disarmament and non-proliferation education," which contains a set of recommendations to promote education in these fields. As a participant of the Expert Group, India spoke of "an urgent need to strengthen the societal dimensions of disarmament in which the academic/research/NGO communities can make a substantial contribution." This issue also received considerable attention during the public launch of the Expert Group's report on 9 October 2002 at the United Nations. This event was well attended and included many delegations and representatives from key NGOs in the field.

Conventional Arms Control

Many States welcomed the outcome of the Second Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which expanded the scope of application of the Convention and its Protocols to cover all situations of armed conflict. Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, emphasized the importance of the Register of Conventional Arms as a measure encouraging greater transparency and stated the need for its universalization. To this end, the Netherlands, on behalf of a large number of States, submitted its draft resolution "Transparency in armaments." Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Costa Rica (speaking on behalf of the Rio Group), Zambia, Switzerland, Lebanon, Croatia, Congo, United States, Vietnam, Syria, and Uruguay are among the other countries which spoke in support of the Register. The Cuban representative made an interesting observation that 98 First Committee delegations spoke of peace, while maintaining arms industries that depended on war, but that only 22 states had made transparent their weapons sales and transfers. Much attention was given to the importance of implementing of the UN Program of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. Singapore emphasized that the First Committee should pay more attention to conventional arms, especially small arms. China said it is implementing the relevant measure contained in the Program of Action. Mexico expressed its hope that the UN interim-conference in 2003 would address the issue of arms brokers as well as the sale to and use of small arms by non-state actors. Japan, on behalf of a large group of states submitted a draft resolution "The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects." Nigeria and Costa Rica made comments regarding the weakness of the Program of Action.

The importance of universality of the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Treaty was raised by many delegations. Jordan made special reference to the treaty and said Queen Noor of Jordan, as patron of the Landmine Survivors Network, is leading and contributing to the worldwide campaign to rid the world of anti-personnel land mines (APLs). The International Committee of the Red Cross also mentioned the land mines issue in its report and said they would host a meeting of States of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Moscow, in early November 2002, to consider the challenges and promise of a Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-personnel Mines.

The First Committee has now entered its second stage of deliberations, namely the introduction of and "thematic debate" on various resolutions before it. It is expected that the Committee will again adopt approximately 40 to 50 resolutions covering all areas of disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and international peace and security. The Committee will conclude its work on 29 October 2002.

CNS Experts on Disarmament:

• William C. Potter
  Director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies
  wpotter@miis.edu

• Jean Du Preez
  Director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Program
  jean.dupreez@miis.edu