First Committee: disarmament and international security; International security needs 'collective action'.

The First Committee at its sixtieth session was faced with some hard decisions and difficult choices in the areas of disarmament, nuclear proliferation and international security.

Chairman Choi Young-Jin of the Republic of Korea told the UN Chronicle that the Committee commenced its work on a "discouraging background", as the 2005 World Summit Outcome document failed to address its core issues. Moreover, the stalemate in disarmament mechanisms, such as the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission, as well as the unsuccessful 2005 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), only brought down the mood in the Committee. "No disarmament mechanism was working, everything is closed, shutdown", Ambassador Choi said, adding that the Committee was the "only show in town".

The Committee was faced with many impediments as it opened its session. There was a "deadlock between conceptualists in the North (developed countries) and South (developing countries)", Mr. Choi said. The standstill created a huge barrier during deliberations and was especially prevalent over the disarmament and nonproliferation issues. Disarmament meant "reduce what you have now", he added. This ideology was directly contrasted with the idea of non-proliferation, which simply put is, "don't touch what we have now, and we will not allow any new weapons development", he added. The North wanted to largely centre its debate on non-proliferation, while the South wanted to focus on disarmament.

Yet, with the growing spectre of nuclear proliferation and the slow pace of nuclear disarmament, the Committee was able to roll out several new drafts and revise substantially some traditional ones. It had to deal with two draft texts with opposing viewpoints: one on the need for compliance with nuclear nonproliferation agreements, and the other urging pursuit of agreed nuclear disarmament obligations. The United States-led text on compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements was adopted by 163 votes to none, with 10 abstentions, while the competing Iran-led text on the follow-up to nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to at the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences was adopted by 87 to 56, with 26 abstentions.

Iran's representative, explaining his abstention from the resolution on compliance, said that a subjective conclusion of non-compliance and the attempt to use that as a "political and foreign policy leverage" undermined the global disarmament and nonproliferation regime. Unlike the previous drafts on compliance, this text had contained drastic changes and had strengthened suspicions that the United States had no trust in such competent international organizations as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), he said. The United States representative, speaking after the vote on the text on follow-up to disarmament obligations, said she had voted "no" on the draft as it shrouded proliferation and non-compliance under the false mantle of the pace of nuclear disarmament. All one needed to do was to look at the draft's sponsor, she said, which was none other than the State that the IAEA Board of Governors just over a month ago had found to be in non-compliance with its NPT obligations.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In addition to the traditional resolution on "Prevention of an arms race in outer space", which was adopted by 180 to 2, a new Russian Federation text on "Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities" was adopted by 178 to 1, with 1 abstention. Its representative, Anton Vasiliev, stressed that the weaponization of space was a credible and major threat, and any hopes to dominate space with the use of force were illusory. One would need to close the loopholes in current international space law and achieve a new and comprehensive international legal agreement, which would block opportunities to deploy any type of weapons in space, he said. An agreement on the non-weaponization of space would be in everyone's interest, first and foremost of States with space programmes, which account for some 130 countries, he added. The United States representative, however, said that there was no need for an international institution to "address a non-existent arms race in outer space". Mr. Choi said that at this point "it is too early to tell the direction that this [issue] may take".

In dealing with weapons systems, the Committee also debated the issue of small arms. Three out of five resolutions were introduced for the first time, including one, adopted by 177 to 1, which linked small arms with negative development, particularly in conflict and post-conflict situations. The General Assembly also adopted an international instrument on marking and tracing illicit small arms and light weapons. In June 2005, consensus was achieved on a text that defined its purpose, among others, as facilitating international cooperation and assistance in marking and tracing, and complementing existing agreements to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit small arms trade, while not restricting States' right to retain those arms for self-defense and security needs, or for their participation in peacekeeping operations. While many delegations praised the instrument, others felt that it did not go far enough. Small arms and light weapons had since 1990 cost the lives of some 4 million people and had forced over 18 million to leave their homes or countries.

Sylvester Ekundayo Rowe of Sierra Leone expressed concern as to why there had been such reluctance to come up with a legally binding international instrument to enable States to identify and trace illicit small arms. In the preamble to the 2001 Programme of Action, several concerns had been expressed, including on the wide-ranging humanitarian and socio-economic consequences of such weapons. While the Programme was not an international convention, but rather a political declaration, he said that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons was international in nature and could only be addressed by an international legally binding instrument. Countries will meet again in July 2006 for the Programme of Action review conference, which would present an opportunity to re-evaluate the work on the issue of marking and tracing such weapons since 2001.

The omnibus resolution on "Nuclear disarmament", sponsored by Myanmar and other Non-Aligned Movement countries and was approved by 113 to 45, with 20 abstentions, widely expands on disarmament measures. Another text, on "Reducing nuclear danger", followed a similar voting pattern. Sponsored by India, it calls for urgent steps, especially by the five nuclear-weapon States, to reduce the risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons.

Japan and the New Agenda Coalition--constituting Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden-presented revised versions of their annual resolutions and engaged in broad consultations. The Coalition's resolution, "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments", was adopted by 153 to 5, with 20 abstentions. The Coalition shared Japan's continued support by voting all together in favour of that country's text on "Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear Weapons", which received 168 votes to 2, with 7 abstentions. Despite the controversy surrounding the Conference on Disarmament's impasse and efforts to solve it, the "Report of the Conference on Disarmament" was adopted without a vote.

Another issue that the First Committee dealt with in 2005 was the question of Antarctica. The text highlights that Antarctica should continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; it should not become the scene or object of international discord. The last time this resolution was adopted was in 2002, and this marks a difference in the way the Committee normally adopts resolutions. Each issue is revisited on a yearly basis to refine and make new decisions based on new data. However, in revisiting an issue every three years, the Committee expedites its proceedings and is more effective and efficient in the long run.

Delegates also focused their attention at the Committee's revitalization and reform efforts, foremost of which were on agenda and debate. In an attempt to improve negotiations and debate, the idea of a "thematic debate" was established and put into practice. "We re-enforced the thematic debate", Mr. Choi said. Before, debate was almost all general, which was criticized by lasting too long, as nearly each country felt the need to make a statement. The thematic debate facilitates interactions, whereas the general debate is encompassed by representatives reading long statements that can take hours, with relatively little added input, Mr. Choi said. He expressed hope that thematic debates will have a "more pronounced role" in the future of the Committee.

For the first time in its history, the First Committee was able to include non-governmental organizations in the process of deliberating over international security issues. In his closing remarks, Mr. Choi said that the potential catastrophes of the twenty-first century, which include "environmental degradation and nuclear proliferation", could not be "averted through the pure pursuit of national interests". He left the delegations with the message that "narrow self-interest and parochial national concerns threatened our very existence and required collective action".