International commitment to reallocate military expenditures for development reaffirmed.

International commitment to reallocate military expenditures for development reaffirmed

Overarmament and underdevelopment viewed as threats to security

THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development, held in New York from 24 August to 11 September, adopted by consensus its Final Document reaffirming the international commitment to allocate a portion of the resources released through disarmament for socio-economic development, so as to bridge the gap between developed and developing countries.

The States participating in the Conference agreed to consider the adoption of measures to reduce the level and magnitude of military expenditures; the utilization of existing regional and international institutions for the reallocation of resources released through disarmament for socio-economic development, particularly in developing countries; and to accord priority to the allocation, through the United Nations, of part of such resources for emergency humanitarian relief operations and critical development problems.

The Final Document recommends an action programme to foster an interrelated perspective on disarmament, development and security; to promote multilateralism in those fields; and to strengthen the central role of the United Nations in the interrelated fields of disarmament and development.

Natwar Singh, Minister of State for External Affairs of India and President of the Conference, said the international community had, by an overwhelming majority, agreed that there existed a close and multidimensional relationship between disarmament and development. The Conference had struck "the right blow, for the right reason, at the right time, and in the right forum'. The United Nations needed such an outcome.

The Final Document, he went on, underlined the far-reaching implications of the global arms race for the world economy and for international economic relations. There were now available an array of forceful arguments, based on economic considerations, in addition to the one of ensuring human survival. If the Conference had helped in bringing home those arguments to policy-makers in Governments all over the world, it would have served its purpose eminently.

He said the adoption of the Document by consensus was yet another step in the direction of arresting the retreat of multilateralism that had been witnessed in recent years. It appeared that there was fairly widespread concern that the attacks on multilateralism had been counter-productive and that there was a common desire to put the concept of multilateralism back on the pedestal it deserved to be on.

In 1984, following a proposal by President Francois Mitterrand of France, the General Assembly decided to convene the international conference on disarmament and development. Its mandate was "to review the relationship between disarmament and development in all its aspects and dimensions' and to examine the implications for the world economy of the level and magnitude of military expenditures, in particular those of nuclear-weapon States and other militarily important States, and to recommend remedial actions. In addition, the Conference was mandated to consider ways and means of releasing additional resources, through disarmament measures, for development purposes, particularly in developing countries.

Currents and cross-currents

In an opening address, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar said the Conference provided the first occasion at which the relationship and interactions between disarmament and development would be examined by representatives of Member States, conscious of all the currents and cross-currents of international affairs. If its deliberations brought clarity where there was much confusion and if the result could be better mutual understanding, then the international community might be on the way towards regaining that sense of human priorities which, in the final analysis, was the prime motive force of both disarmament and development.

Participating in the Conference at a high political level were 150 States and Namibia, represented by the United Nations Council for Namibia. The world forum was also attended by representatives of a number of specialized agencies and United Nations bodies and intergovernmental organizations. More than 100 non-governmental organizations attended the Conference; 40 of them also made statements.

The United States did not participate in the Conference, stating the international community should consider the questions of disarmament and development as two distinct issues. It was a mistake to presume that there was an inherent relationship between those two areas.

The Conference conducted its business in plenary, in a Committee of the Whole and in three working groups. The working groups considered three main substantive items on the Conference agenda. The Committee of the Whole considered the reports of the working groups and discussed the draft Final Document. The plenary considered the report of the Committee of the Whole and took action on the Final Document and the report of the Conference.

"Two pillars'

The Final Document, in its preamble, describes disarmament and development as two of the most urgent challenges facing the contemporary world, as "two pillars' on which enduring international peace and security can be built.

The continuing arms race, the Document says, is absorbing far too great a proportion of the world's human, financial, natural and technological resources, placing a heavy burden on the economies of all countries and affecting the international flow of trade, finance and technology. The global military expenditures are in "dramatic contrast' to economic and social underdevelopment, and to the misery and poverty afflicting more than two thirds of mankind.

Disarmament and development are distinct processes: each should be pursued vigorously regardless of the pace of progress in the other, and should not be made hostage to the other. Pursuit of development cannot wait for the release of resources from disarmament. Similarly, disarmament has its own imperative separate from the purpose of releasing resources for development.

However, disarmament and development have a close and multidimensional relationship, the Document states. Each of them can have an impact at the national, regional and global level in such a way as to create an environment conducive to the promotion of the other.

Considering the present resource constraints of both developed and developing countries, reduced world military spending could contribute significantly to development, the Document affirms. Disarmament can assist the process of development not only by releasing additional resources but also by positively affecting the global economy. It can create conditions conducive to promoting equitable economic and technological co-operation and to pursuing the objectives of a new international economic order.

In the relationship between disarmament and development, security plays a crucial role, the Document states. Security is an overriding priority for all nations and is fundamental for both disarmament and development, which, in their turn, could also enhance security.

The Document adopts a wider approach to the concept of security which is seen as being threatened both by military and non-military factors. Recently, non-military threats to security have moved to the forefront of global concern, the text asserts. Underdevelopment and declining prospects for development constitute challenges to security. The degradation of the environment presents a threat to sustainable development. The world can hardly be regarded as secure as long as there is polarization of wealth and poverty at the national and international levels.

The Final Document also outlines an action programme by which participating States reaffirmed their commitments in the fields of disarmament and development and reiterated their determination to adopt, both individually and collectively, appropriate measures to implement those commitments, including bilateral, regional and global initiatives for peaceful resolution of conflicts and disputes. They also stressed the importance of respect for the international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts.

States will consider keeping under review issues related to a conversion of military industry to civilian production and undertaking studies to identify and publicize the benefits that could be derived from the reallocation of military resources.

They also agreed to continue to assess their political and security requirements and the level of their military spending and to keep the public informed on the subject; to assess the nature and volume of resources that may be released through arms limitation and disarmament; and to carry out regularly analyses of the economic and social consequences of their military spending and to inform their public and the United Nations about them.

States recognized that an informed public, including nongovernmental organizations, had "an invaluable role to play' in helping to promote the objectives of disarmament and development and creating an awareness of the relationship between disarmament, development and security. They emphasized the need to strengthen the central role of the United Nations in the field of disarmament and development.

Ninety-nine speakers

During a seven-day general debate, 99 speakers, including 35 at the ministerial level, were heard. In addition, Inga Thorsson, Moderator of the Panel of Eminent Personalities in the Field of Disarmament and Development, presented the Joint Declaration, adopted by the Panel in April 1986. (For details see UN Chronicle, 1986, No. 4.)

After adoption of the Final Document, statements were made by representatives of 22 States. Many delegations welcomed the consensus adoption of the Final Document and viewed it as a victory of multilateralism. Others felt it was a compromise text which failed to completely satisfy their concerns.

Mexico, for example, regretted that the document did not contain any proposal for the future establishment of a fund to channel the resources freed by disarmament measures towards development in developing countries.

The socialist States also believed that a special mechanism for the transfer of part of the resources released through disarmament to developing countries would ensure the required institutional relationship between disarmament and development.

They further suggested that the Security Council should consider the relationship between disarmament and development at the highest level and that a review conference should be held to examine, in four or five years, the implementation of the Final Document of the Conference. That view was shared by some other States who regretted that the Document did not contain specific follow-up proposals on the action programme.

Some nations, including Mexico and Zimbabwe, felt that the Document attached an exaggerated importance to the concept of security. It indicated, they believed, a preference for the concept of security put forward by the major military alliances, to the detriment of the system of collective security envisaged by the Charter. Sweden, on the other hand, believed that the Document interpreted security in the broadest possible political, economic and human sense.

Zimbabwe also said that the Final Document, instead of focusing primarily on disarmament by those States whose military expenditures had the greatest effect on the world economy, had been drafted so that it could be interpreted to mean that the arms expenditures of the smallest countries were to be treated like those of the most powerful. China also regretted that the Document did not place the primary responsibility for disarmament on the super-Powers.

On the other hand, the United Kingdom stated that by devoting so much attention to defence expenditures in the industrialized world, the Document ignored the high military budgets and the question of arms production in many developing countries. The United Kingdom further stated that the Document failed to reflect the need for transparency in the provision of estimates on military expenditures. It also declared that if any savings materialized from disarmament measures, it reserved the right to allocate those in accordance with its own priorities through the channels it deemed most appropriate.

The Netherlands also did not accept the economic analysis contained in the Document, which was "rather general' and tended to point to the military expenditures of the industrialized countries as the main cause of problems in the world economy.

France was of the view that the Final Document contained only a "rough outline' of the real problems of the relationship between disarmament and development. The attainment of disarmament was subject to a number of conditions deriving not only from the realities of the world and the diversity of regional situations and problems, but also from the need to maintain stability. France believed that there was no cause-and-effect relationship between the desired reduction in defense expenditure and the financing of development.

Conference background

In 1984, the General Assembly decided (resolution 39/160) to convene an international conference on the relationship between disarmament and development, and for that purpose established a preparatory committee. The Conference was originally scheduled for 1986 in Paris, but in 1986 the Assembly decided the meeting would take place in New York in 1987.

The Preparatory Committee established by the Assembly consisted of 54 Member States. However, it became open to participation by all Member States. Under the chairmanship of Ambassador Muchkund Dubey of India, the Committee held four sessions. The first was held in July-August 1985, and the second in April 1986. The third session, in June 1986, adopted by consensus a list of 19 elements as well as a programme of action of 10 points, to be included in a final text of the Conference. On the basis of that paper, as well as working papers submitted by various countries, the Preparatory Committee at its fourth and final meeting in April-May 1987 adopted a report to the Conference containing a draft final document.

Officers

In addition to President Natwar Singh, other Conference officers were: Martin Huslid (Norway), Chairman of the Committee of the Whole; Dietmar Hucke (German Democratic Republic), Oscar Oramas-Oliva (Cuba) and Paul Bamela Engo (Cameroon), Chairman of the three Working Groups; and Lieutenant-Colonel W. Alexander Morrison (Canada), Rapporteur-General.

The nine Vice-Presidents of the Conference represented Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, France, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

Serving as members of its Credentials Committee were the Bahamas, China, the Federal Republic of Germany, Fiji, Ghana, the Netherlands, Rwanda, the USSR and Venezuela.

Jan Martenson, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva and former Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, served as the Secretary-General of the Conference.

Photo: Conference President Natwar Singh of India, flanked by the Secretary-General (left) and Jan Martenson, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva.

Photo: Inga Thorsson Moderator, Panel of Eminent Personalities

Photo: Preparatory Committee Chairman Muchkund Dubey