CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT CONTINUES DISCUSSION OF TRANSPARENCY IN ARMAMENTS

The Conference on Disarmament this afternoon continued its discussion of Transparency in Armaments, hearing speakers urge further controls on Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS), whose proliferation and unauthorised use was, according to speakers, an imminent and acute threat to international peace and security.

The objective of transparency was to enhance international transparency in arms transfers and holdings, to build confidence among States, and to deal with potentially destabilising regional arms build-ups. Transparency in armaments was one of the key elements in constructing international peace and security. Transparency-building measures were and would be one of the key elements in constructing a positive environment conducive to disarmament on regional and international levels, speakers said.

MANPADS clearly posed a threat to international security, speakers said. They posed an imminent and acute threat to military aircraft and civilian airliners. They were widely available, and could be vulnerable to theft and possible transfer to terrorist groups through illicit arms markets. Measures aiming to halt the proliferation of these weapons had now been adopted in certain multilateral fora. These dispositions had borne mainly on reinforcing the control of experts, the improvement of stock management, and the destruction of surplus weapons.

There was a serious potential for the subject within the context of the body, and the subject deserved the entire attention of the Conference, speakers said, whilst others urged that the discussion should not be a substitute for the four core issues on the agenda, which continued to maintain their priority, as they required prior attention and work. The challenge facing the Conference at this point was to work on enhancing cooperation and coordination on this subject in the different forums dealing with it.

The Conference also decided to agree to a request by Timor-Leste to participate in the work of the Conference, in accordance with the rules of procedure.

Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Turkey, Pakistan, Poland, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, Israel, Algeria, Syria, and Israel.

The next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament will be on Thursday 31 August at 10 a.m., when it will hold a general debate.

Statements

VEHBI ESGEL ETENSEL (Turkey) said there was an estimated half a million MANPADS in the world today, many thousands of which were thought to be on the black market, and, therefore, accessible and attractive to terrorists, as they were easy to use, highly portable and concealable. The proliferation and unauthorised use of MANPADS posed indeed an imminent and acute threat to civil aviation and anti-terrorist operations. In the hands of trained terrorists, they had already unfortunately caused substantial civilian casualties. The international community should act decisively to improve stockpile security, airport security, aircraft protection, collection and destruction of old and surplus MANPADS and strengthen export controls in countries that imported and manufactured MANPADS.

The threat emanating from the unauthorised proliferation and use of MANPADS was recognised by the international community. Turkey maintained the view that monitoring and controlling the activities of producers, exporters, brokers, transporters, importers and end-users of MANPADS was essential in eradicating illicit trade in these weapons. Hence, a comprehensive approach was needed, encompassing not only export controls but also import and trans-shipment controls as well. Discussing MANPADS at the Conference could indeed prove useful and fruitful, but it should not be a substitute for the four core issues on the agenda, which continued to maintain their priority.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) said while Pakistan was of the view that the four core issues on the Conference’s agenda required prior attention and work, the Conference could contribute to the enhancement of transparency in armaments. The Register and the United Nations Standardised Instrument for Reporting on Military Expenditures had been successful in recording disclosures of arms transfers in seven categories, which had no doubt made it possible to work for enhanced transparency. These instruments had worked well, and they needed to be made more effective, as they also had certain limitations. They were not arms control or arms regulation instruments, although it was safe to assume that global transparency should lead to restraint in armaments.

Transparency was a means to an end, not an end itself. It provided nations with a mirror, not a cure for the afflictions that were revealed. Its optimum use would be possible only if it was used in combination with other tools. When transparency gave evidence of a conventional arms race or build-up, the international community’s response should not be acquiescence or complacency, but one geared to restraint and CBMs at the regional and sub-regional levels. States had the right to acquire weapons to defend themselves: at the same time, it was their obligation to make every effort to foster a favourable security environment. Transparency was an important means of building confidence- however, confidence building was not a function of transparency alone. The most significant confidence-building measure was the voluntary reduction in armaments by militarily advanced States with a view to achieving equal security for all.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said today’s debate was yet another proof of the effectiveness of the focused structured debates on the Conference’s agenda items. The issue under discussion today was extremely important for international peace and security, and was also proof that the Conference’s agenda was flexible enough to discuss many issues. Transparency in armaments was one of the key elements in constructing international peace and security. Transparency-building measures were and would be one of the key elements in constructing a positive environment conducive to disarmament on regional and international levels. Building confidence among States in the conventional area could lead to improvement of relations between States, and, furthermore, to substantive reductions and far-going arms control and disarmament arrangements.

Along with the traditional issues raised under the title “Transparency in Armaments”, there were proposals to discuss issues that were relatively new- but the fact that they were new did not mean that they were not key to assuring international peace and security. MANPADS clearly posed a threat to international security. They posed an imminent and acute threat to military aircraft and civilian airliners. They were widely available, and could be vulnerable to theft and possible transfer to terrorist groups through illicit arms markets. At present, they were not subject to stringent national export standards, nor did they have adequate physical security. Poland supported activities to reduce the risk of terrorists acquiring MANPADS through illicit arms markets. There was a need to increase these efforts through multilateral fora and bilateral diplomacy and cooperation. Transparency in armaments was just one step, but of critical importance, in achieving the important goal of sustainable arms control and disarmament.

SASCHA FULS (Switzerland) said greater transparency was a major factor for confidence and security among States. The discussions on the extension of the Register to MANPADS had been of particular interest, as the proliferation of these weapons posed a serious threat, notably as non-State actors held a significant number of these weapons. The potential impact in both human and economic terms of a successful attack on civilian aircraft was such that the necessity to master this threat concerned all States. Measures aiming to halt the proliferation of these weapons had now been adopted in certain multilateral fora. These dispositions had borne mainly on reinforcing the control of experts, the improvement of stock management, and the destruction of surplus weapons.

If certain multilateral bodies were addressing the situation, its situation with regards to the United Nations was not yet optimal. However, the United Nations had an essential role to play with regards to the problem: whilst regional organizations were probably more apt to implement operational projects such as the destruction of stocks, the elaboration of norms and standards required a universal application, which was fully within the mandate of the United Nations. These norms should bear on the control of the export of MANPADS, in particular the interdiction of their transfer to non-State actors. Therefore, it was particularly welcome, and necessary, that the Conference examine the situation. A dialogue on the subject in the context of the Conference could allow a better understanding of the threat posed by these weapons, and to contribute to identifying measures allowing to counter it.

FRANCOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said the question of the use of MANPADS against civilian aircraft was without a doubt a grave current reason for concern. Recent facts had underlined the important risk that this irresponsible use had for the security of air transport. This risk impacted not only on an element of the security of States, but also on the conditions of collective security. This was why France shared the concern for the need to reinforce and enlarge to the widest number of countries the realisation of the potentially grave threat constituted by MANPADS for civilian aviation, should they fall into the hands of terrorist groups.

The issue had of course been paid attention in several fora, including in the G8, the Wassenaar Agreement, and the OSCE, and a certain number of dispositions with regards to the control of the transfer of this type of weapons had been elaborated and agreed. This did not imply that everything had been done, and that the subject was of no relevance for the Conference. There was a serious potential for the subject within the context of the body, and it was France’s opinion that the subject deserved the entire attention of the Conference. It was up to the Conference to choose among the range of instruments available to it for studying the problem, and this should be undertaken from the perspective of complementarity: the Conference had the multilateral and universal vocation of deciding on appropriate measures, that was to say those presenting maximum added value with regards to the subject under discussion.
JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said in recent years increasing attention in the international community had been paid to MANPADS. This weapon was not only the most technologically advanced of all small arms and light weapons, within that category it was also the weapon that could cause most damage, in particular when used against civilian aircraft. In times of asymmetrical threats, that had proven to be a profound concern for all States. The prevention of illicit transfer of MANPADS formed an essential part of the prevention of terrorism in general, and was a security concern shared by all. Last year’s United Nations General Assembly resolution 60/77 on the Prevention of the illicit transfer and authorised access to and use of MANPADS was adopted without a vote, and formed a good starting point to further address the illicit proliferation of MANPADS. Exchange of information and transparency measures formed the basis of international cooperation and assistance.

The most important instrument to curtail the supply of MANPADS to unauthorised users was sound national legislation on the transfer of arms, as well as effective controls and enforcement of this legislation. However, exchange of information and transparency measures rendered added value to national measures. Transparency was a sine qua non to effectively combating illicit trade in all kinds of Small Arms and Light Weapons. Full transparency on legal transactions created the possibility of effectively identifying what was illegal. The issue of MANPADS was a multifaceted problem to which no simple, one-dimensional solution existed. The sense of urgency to consider further national and international measures with respect to illicit MANPADS was high, and the challenge facing the Conference at this point was to work on enhancing cooperation and coordination on this subject in the different forums dealing with it.

MEIR ITZCHAKI (Israel) said the Conference’s agenda should reflect and address existing challenges to international peace and security. Therefore, the issue of Transparency in Armaments was as relevant to the Conference today as much as it was during the years 1992-1994- it had become all too relevant in view of the excessive accumulation of arms in the hands of terrorists and terrorist groups for which their destabilising effect was well known. Transparency in Armaments was one of the means to build confidence in different regions; it was an important element that could foster existing arms control arrangements and could enhance confidence in different regions.

The problem of illicit proliferation and use of MANPADS encompasses a variety of issues, such as the control and monitoring of these types of weapon, preventing transfers to non-state actors, in particular terrorists. The international community should apply special treatment to the issue, as the threat that MANPADS posed to civil aviation was unquestioned. Also, their unique characteristics, namely that they were easily obtained and operated, relatively cheap and with a massive potential impact, highlighted the need for them to be given special treatment. Whether dealt with separately or in the framework of other weapons categories, the common understanding was that a multi-faceted or multi-layered approach was needed to effectively address the security challenges of MANPADS. Illicit transfers of arms, in particular to terrorists and terrorist groups, had become a growing threat to security and stability. The responsibility lay on the Conference’s shoulders.

HAMZA KEHLIF (Algeria) said the current item on the agenda was of utmost importance. It was a cornerstone of all the subjects that had been previously discussed this year. There could be no discussion of nuclear disarmament or negative security assurances, nor of FMCT or PAROS without having clear transparency measures, which established the necessary confidence between States, and could therefore enhance international peace and security.

The question of Transparency in Armaments was closely linked to that of monitoring. Due regard has been taken of what had been presented by the Under-Secretary-General of Foreign Affairs of Argentina and the Delegate of the United States with regards to the United Nations Register. The percentages were comfortable, but they were unclear with regards to the global production of weapons. Nuclear weapons were the only weapons of mass destruction that had a partial right of possession for certain States only, and therefore there was no framework to establish transparency. The Conference should begin to deal with this matter.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said today the Conference was discussing Transparency In Armaments, and was finishing the structured discussion of agenda items. With regards to these issues, Syria’s position was that it had expressed its readiness to adhere to a general consensus on a programme of work for the Conference on the basis of the A5 Proposal. Any measures to build confidence and transparency in armaments, to be effective, had to take into account the right of States to self-defence, as provided for under the United Nations Charter. The only way to achieve coherency in the Conference’s work would be to take into account the four core issues on the agenda. Any attempt to push certain issues to the forefront at the expense of others would not succeed: ignoring the security concerns of certain countries would only lead to a continuance of the stalemate.

Syria was not in favour of beginning negotiations on a FMCT without having a balanced agenda. The attempts of certain delegations to have certain items included on the agenda were not in favour of the work of the Conference, and therefore Syria was against the inclusion of any items that were not already on the agenda, in particular with regards to the importance of the four core issues, on which the Conference should continue to focus. Syria rejected the inclusion of MANPADS and the issue of Critical Infrastructure on the agenda. During meetings, delegations had spoken on the importance of international peace and security, and of the lives of human beings, and these were beautiful words, if only translated to reality. Some of these States had, in full transparency, provided Israel with cluster bombs and other forms of missiles which had been used against Lebanese civilians. Israel had committed war crimes in Lebanon.

MEIR ITZCHAKI (Israel) speaking in a right of reply. said having listened to the previous speaker, it was a bit odd to hear the expressions of defence coming from a State that was known to provide terrorist groups with weapons. This was clearly reflected in the reports of the Security Council, including the failure to implement resolution 15/59 and was now standing in the way of resolution 17/01 which impeded the transfer of arms to Hizbollah. It was odd that Syria would lecture Israel. It was not Israel’s intention to divert intention from Transparency In Arms, and would not go along with such a diversion.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) speaking in a right of reply, said Syria did not hide its political support for patriotic resistance against the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories. If Israel considered resistance to be terrorism, then it should remember that the Nazis had also accused those who resisted of being terrorists. On the non-implementation of United Nations resolutions, in resolution 15/59, there was a paragraph concerning Syria, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations had recognised that Syria had implemented that resolution. On resolution 17/01, this had nothing to do with Syria, it was on the subject of Israel.

If Israel intended to implement United Nations resolutions, there were a large number of these which called upon Israel, and Israel had not implemented them. The country that violated international law on a daily basis had no right to try to lecture others. Israel had committed all the crimes referred to in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel should amend its policies: words would never change reality. Everything happening in Lebanon was happening in Gaza, where missiles had been dropped on occupied Palestine. Members of Parliament and the Cabinet had been kidnapped. Israel had attempted to gag Palestine.

For use of the information media; not an official record

DC06046E