CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DEBATES TRANSPARENCY IN ARMAMENTS
The Conference on Disarmament this morning began a focused, structured debate on transparency in armaments.
Roberto García Moritán, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, said that the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms had certainly become one of the most important confidence-building measures adopted at the global level. The purpose of the Register had been to create an early warning mechanism capable of marking certain trends in the war equipment of States and, after 13 years in existence, it had become an effective instrument for promoting understanding between States. The Register had enabled the disclosure of 97 per cent of transfers of conventional arms made globally, and had therefore made it possible to increase transparency.
In the ensuing debate on transparency in armaments, speakers agreed that the topic should be viewed in the larger context of confidence-building measures. The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was universally supported, as were efforts to further expand and refine that instrument, and it was hailed as one of the most significant instruments in the area of transparency in armaments. A number of speakers also expressed support for efforts towards the creation of an Arms Trade Treaty within the United Nations framework.
The debate also focused on the history of the agenda item on transparency in armaments, which had originally been initiated in the Conference at the request of the General Assembly in its resolution 46/36 L. But the item had been moved to the "back burner", according to a Speaker, when the Committee had split into two camps – those who had wanted to discuss transparency in conventional weapons, and those who wanted to discuss transparency in weapons of mass destruction.
Several speakers highlighted the right of States to produce arms and engage in the arms trade, and emphasized that measures to enhance transparency in armaments had to fully respect those rights, as well as taking into account the legitimate security needs of States and the principle of undiminished security at the lowest possible level of armaments. Many speakers also felt that measures to promote transparency in armaments should be voluntary.
At the beginning of the meeting, on behalf of the Conference, the President extended condolences to the families of the victims of the devastating Russian Airline plane crash in the Ukraine, as well as to the Government of the Russian Federation.
Also speaking this morning were representatives of the United States, Japan, Italy, the Russian Federation, India, Germany, the Netherlands, and China.
The next meeting of the Conference will be at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 24 August, when the Conference will hear a presentation from a representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear and other explosive nuclear devices. Following the plenary would be an informal question and answer session, which would be held in private.
Statements
ANTON PINTER (Slovakia), Conference President, said that he would like to briefly introduce the topic of transparency in armaments just to outline some of the highlights of the development of the agenda item. The concept of transparency in armaments dated back to the 1980's when the General Assembly promoted it in a number of ways as part of a general process of confidence-building. On the recommendation of the Disarmament Commission the General Assembly had in 1988 endorsed specific guidelines on confidence-building with a view to strengthening international peace and security and facilitating the process of arms limitations and disarmament. Those and ensuing efforts resulted in General Assembly resolution 46/36 L, which requested Member States to establish the Register of Conventional Arms and asked the Conference on Disarmament to discuss the question.
Mr. Pinter recalled that the Conference appointed a Special Coordinator in 1992 with the task of conducting consultations on all aspects of the question. As a result of those consultations, the Conference adopted a decision on organizational arrangements for the implementation of resolution 46/36 L which guided the work of an Ad Hoc Committee on Transparency in Armaments in 1993 and in 1994. However, the divergence of views on the duration of the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee prevented the Conference from re-establishing it in 1995 and thereafter. The Conference dealt with the issue in a formal way once again when it decided to appoint a Special Coordinator on the agenda item, and reports of the Special Coordinator were presented to the Conference in June and August 1998.
ROBERTO GARCÍA MORITÁN, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, said that transparency in armaments was a matter to which Argentina attached particular importance, in particular with regard to its interest in promoting and consolidating confidence-building measures between and among States. Argentina was convinced that the implementation and consolidation of confidence-building measures not only enabled the prevention of armed conflict, but also offered an effective tool to encourage greater political, economic and cultural integration. In that connection, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was a mechanism that had certainly become one of the most important confidence-building measures adopted at the global level. The purpose of the Register had been to create an early warning mechanism capable of marking certain trends in the war equipment of States and, after 13 years in existence, it had become an effective instrument to promote understanding between States. The Register had enabled the disclosure of 97 per cent of transfers of conventional arms made globally, and had therefore made it possible to increase transparency.
Mr. García Moritán said that the importance attached by Argentina to the strengthening of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was against the background of its broader commitment throughout the last decade to the development, implementation and strengthening of confidence-building measures at the subregional, regional and global levels. As an example, Argentina had recently circulated – with Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya and the United Kingdom – a draft resolution to be negotiated at the next session of the General Assembly on an Arms Trade Treaty. Argentina believed that the conditions were now in place to move forwards in preparing an instrument that would enable States to commit themselves not only to greater transparency in transfers of conventional weapons, but also to reaching common understanding to ensure that such transfers took place pursuant to applicable international law. The possibilities offered by the Conference were not exhausted; Argentina was convinced that there was enough room to advance towards the fulfilment of the goals of the Conference.
WILLIAM MALZAHN (United States) said that the transparency in armaments initiative had arisen at the end of the Cold War when a number of States had questioned the relevance of a multilateral security agenda that focused exclusively on weapons of mass destruction and failed to address conventional weapons. The end-result of complex and tortuous negotiations was United Nations General Assembly resolution 46/36 L, “Transparency in Armaments”, which was adopted on 6 December 1991. That resolution launched a two-track process: the first established the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms; the second called for the Conference on Disarmament to take up the subject of transparency in armaments. By any measure, the Register had been a resounding success, establishing a global norm of transparency and accountability in military matters and reinforcing civilian control of the military. By reporting on both imports and exports, the Register had captured the vast majority of the international conventional arms trade within its seven categories. The United States continued to make it a strong objective to universalise annual participation in the register.
Mr. Malzahn observed that the second, and, unfortunately, far less successful part of the transparency in armaments initiative, was the one that asked the Conference to address the question. No timeframe had been specified for the Conference’s work. The Conference had added transparency in armaments to its agenda in 1992, and in 1993 it established the Ad Hoc Committee on the subject. During the 1994 session the Ad Hoc Committee attempted unsuccessfully to bridge differences and find common ground on concrete proposals. In 1995, those spilled over into a general debate in the Conference on the relationship between conventional and nuclear disarmament- that was the origin of the paralysis that afflicted the Conference today. The United States had strongly supported the transparency in armaments concept since its inception, and continued to do so. It was disappointed that the item had over the years been moved to the proverbial back burner in discussions about the Conference’s work programme. The United States looked forward to an early decision by the Conference to continue in-depth discussions on transparency in armaments and other items on the Conference’s agenda, and to commence negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.
YOSHINOBU HIRAISHI (Japan) said that Japan welcomed the holding of structured debates on transparency in armaments. In that context, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms could never be discounted. Likewise, the meetings of the Group of Governmental Experts on the Register of Conventional Arms had steadily generated a number of welcomed accomplishments. The inclusion of man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) as a subcategory of missile and missile launchers, and agreement to a standardized reporting form for small arms and light weapons were just a couple of recent examples of those accomplishments. Efforts towards the creation of an Arms Trade Treaty within the United Nations framework should also be given due attention. Japan, along with six other countries, had circulated a draft resolution on the matter, urging all nations to take responsibility for their arms transfers with the aim of reducing unregulated and irresponsible weapons transfers. Indeed, ensuring the responsible transfer of arms through the Arms Trade Treaty, and registering them in accordance with the United Nations Register were mutually reinforcing measures.
Mr. Hiraishi said that steady progress had been witnessed in international efforts in the area of transparency in armaments, but those efforts and initiatives had been taken outside the Conference. Within the Conference, over the last few years there had been no substantial discussions on the topic. Given the current unfavourable international security environment, did they have the luxury to leave the situation as it was, he said. The Conference’s role should be examined afresh, with the aim of exploring how it could contribute to the further promotion of transparency in armaments. The first and most important step would be to seriously study and follow the ongoing activities made at the global, regional and national levels and to identify problems that required more action. Also, the establishment in the future of a feedback mechanism on the achievements of each forum would be extremely helpful.
CARLO TREZZA (Italy) said that, at a national level, Italy had at present no specific negotiating or deliberative suggestions to make under the agenda item. It recognized, however, that transparency in armaments remained a key feature of disarmament and non-proliferation. It was a concept closely linked and complementary to verification. Transparency was a horizontal issue in the sense that it was common to all sectors of armaments and of disarmament, be they conventional or non-conventional. In the conventional field, one of the major achievements that had been reached so far was the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. Italy expected more countries to actively participate in that exercise. The fact that the Register did not encompass more types of armaments could not be a reason for not contributing to it.
Mr. Trezza said that transparency was also needed for weapons of mass destruction. Italy believed that over the years improvement in the transparency on nuclear armaments had been achieved through bilateral and multilateral treaties on disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as through unilateral initiatives. Another relevant aspect which should be added to the Conference’s deliberations was the “Cooperative threat reduction” initiative, of which the G8 Global Partnership was the most significant expression. In addition to being an instrument for weapons of mass destruction disarmament, it was a relevant instrument for transparency in the field of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Finally, regarding MANPADS, Italy was aware of the destabilizing effect of such weapons in the hands of non-State actors, and recalled the statements and positions on that issue by the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the G8, as well as the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons and the Wassenaar Arrangement.
VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said that Russia viewed transparency in armaments from the context of confidence-building measures in the field of armaments. A lot had already been accomplished in that regard in the frameworks of bilateral, multilateral and global treaties on limitations and reductions of strategic conventional arms. Obviously, this was a matter of delicate balance. As a rule, transparency was supposed to service the specific purposes of a treaty or an agreement; it should not weaken the security of sovereign States, reduce the combat capabilities of their weaponry, nor become a channel of proliferation. The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was an important institution in building confidence and security in international relations, and Russia provided it with data on a regular basis. As regarded transfers of arms, expansion of transparency should not jeopardize the national security of importing States and impede their ability to acquire means for the execution of their legal right to self-defence.
Mr. Loshchinin said that Russia supported the leading role of the United Nations in the resolution of problems related to the proliferation of small arms and light weapons on the basis of the United Nations Programme of Action in that area. Russia was also interested in the most effective operation of the Wassenaaar Arrangement and the Hague Code of Conduct. With regards to the latter, it was objectively necessary to transform it into a truly multilateral mechanism of transparency and confidence in the field of prevention and proliferation of ballistic missiles, with the central role played by the United Nations. Russia could be ready not to object to consensus on the issue of the Conference’s programme of work on the basis of the last version of the Five Ambassador’s proposal, including the appointment of a Special Coordinator on transparency in armaments. The Conference could work out, inter alia, recommendations and criteria for increasing practical effectiveness of transparency and confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons. At the same time, the Conference should not subrogate the work already being done either at the region or at the global level. Priority at this stage should be given, in principle, to a strict implementation of the existing obligations and to the universalization of the regimes in force, not to new agreements.
JAYANT PRASAD (India) said that all States had the inherent right to self-defence, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Consequently, they had the right to acquire arms for their security, including through imports. The right of States to produce arms and engage in the arms trade was well recognized. Measures to enhance transparency in armaments had to, therefore, be based on full respect for those rights. Also, they should take into account the legitimate security needs of States and the principle of undiminished security at the lowest possible level of armaments. As with other confidence-building measures, measures to promote transparency in armaments should be voluntary and mutually agreed upon by all States; only then would they be able to secure the widest possible participation and effectively contribute to the process of confidence-building.
Mr. Prasad said that the international community was justifiably concerned over the increasing illicit trade in conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons, which had sustained conflicts between and within States, had fuelled global terrorism and was linked to other transnational organized crime. United Nations Member States had therefore agreed on a Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons. India supported the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms as an important global confidence-building measure and had regularly submitted annual reports to it. Transparency in armaments had been understood so far in its limited context of reporting on transfer of conventional arms; in fact, transparency in reporting on defence expenditures could also help build confidence among States. India also believed that there should be adjustments to the categories of arms covered under the Register to make it more relevant to the security concerns of States. India had supported the inclusion of MANPADS in 2003, and would like to see greater progress in terms of inclusion of small arms and light weapons within the scope of the Register.
BERNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said that he would like to highlight the biennial German-Romanian General Assembly resolution entitled “Objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures”, which was an important transparency tool. Significant progress had been recorded this year in the level of participation by Governments in the Register of Conventional Arms and in the Standardized Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures. A promising upturn and a record number of submissions had also been recorded for the United Nations System for the Standardized Reporting on Military Expenditures. So far, more than 115 Governments took active part in that process, which together constituted 80 per cent of global military expenditure.
Mr. Brasack said that Germany supported the revised Five Ambassadors proposal for a Conference work programme that included the appointment of a Special Coordinator under the agenda item on transparency in armaments to seek the views of its members on the most appropriate way to deal with questions related to that item. An enhanced level of transparency in armaments contributed to increased confidence-building and enhanced international stability and security; it was also an important form of arms control, at both the global and regional levels. Exchange of military information and inspections also constituted important means to foster better mutual understanding of national military capabilities and activities that could contribute to reducing potential crises. An effective exchange of information formed the basis for effective verification measures.
JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said that, as initiator of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, the Netherlands particularly welcomed the positive results of the work done by the Group of Governmental Experts, which had been able to further extend the Register’s scope on three points. First, the Group recommended that international transfers of conventional arms involving only United Nations Member States should be reported to the Register, thus paving the way for one important country to notify its relevant transactions to the Register again. Second, the Group decided to extend the notification commitment regarding the sixth category of the Register, which would result in a wider information exchange on warships and submarines. Third, an optional standardized form for notification of transfers of small arms and light weapons had been agreed. The Group, which met every three years, had now consistently proven that it was able to make real progress.
Mr. Landman said that the Netherlands regularly tabled a draft resolution on transparency in armaments in conjunction with the report submitted every three years by the Group of Governmental Experts to the General Assembly, and would thus table a new one soon. With it, Netherlands aimed, as in earlier years, to gain wide United Nations support for the results of the Group of Experts report, for the Secretary-General to adopt the report and to secure a mandate for the next Group of Governmental Experts to review and further develop the United Nations Register in 2009. That was a resolution on a process that worked.
CHENG JINGYE (China) said that China’s position on transparency in armaments had all along been clear and consistent. First, the objective of transparency in armaments was to strengthen world peace, security and stability. Secondly, in the pursuit of transparency in armaments, the principle of undiminished security for all should be upheld. Thirdly, transparency measures should be both appropriate and feasible. Each country should decide on its transparency measures voluntarily in the light of its own specific situation. Fourthly, the role of transparency in armaments should be viewed objectively. Transparency was not a panacea. Transparency in armaments played a positive role in strengthening international peace and security, but it hardly constituted a cause-and-effective relationship. To put it bluntly, transparency in armaments was but a confidence-building measure.
Mr. Cheng said that the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms had played a positive role in fostering confidence among States, and China had actively participated in the work of the Register. China had made efforts towards the establishment, development and improvement of the Register, and it was China's hope that its universality would be continuously enhanced so that its original purpose could be realized. However, a certain country had insisted on registering its arms sales to the Taiwan Province of China, in violation of the spirit of the relevant General Assembly resolution, and to the detriment of the purpose and principle of the Register. Therefore, China had had no choice but to suspend its participation in the Register in 1998. Of late, the Group of Governmental Experts had reached agreement in their report that the Register was only meant to record arms transfers among United Nations Member States. The concerned country had also pledged to stop registering its arms sales to the Taiwan Province of China as of next year, in accordance with the resolution. It was China's hope that that pledge would be honoured at an early date so that the obstacle to China's re-entry in the work of the Register would be completely removed.
For use of the information media; not an official record
DC06044E