“Training Course on Disarmament and Weapons of Mass Destruction”

Dr. Koser
Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is a pleasure to be here and speak again at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, one of the United Nations’ key partners here in Geneva. I thank you for the invitation to deliver a keynote address at the first “Training Course on Disarmament and Weapons of Mass Destruction”. I would like to address a special word of thanks to Dr. Sidhu, the Director of the course, whose experience on disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation is well-known to all of us.

As I was going through the list of participants, I was pleased to see that you come from around 25 different countries, representing almost all regions of the world. I welcome your interest in disarmament, which is truly a global challenge. But it is also a challenge where perspectives and priorities differ across regions, and I believe that it will be especially enriching for you to be exposed to these differences through your discussions here. A deeper understanding of the concerns and perceptions that determine different views is, I believe, the first step towards finding common ground. And as such, it is the first step towards inclusive agreements that will bring us a safer and more secure world through disarmament and non-proliferation.

Allow me to share with you a few thoughts on current developments in disarmament, and I will be happy to discuss with you afterwards.

The Conference on Disarmament is going through a difficult moment. States do not seem to be able to bridge their differences to start negotiations on any of its substantive agenda items. Currently, there is at least one country that cannot accept a programme of work that includes any concept of negotiating on a treaty on fissile material – a so-called FM(C)T – while many others cannot live with a programme of work that excludes an FM(C)T. This situation is highly unfortunate, because a negotiating mandate for an FM(C)T would be in line with the expressed priorities of the international community and would also be a logical step on the road towards a world free of nuclear weapons.

In my view, the Conference on Disarmament is no longer living up to expectations and suffers from a serious credibility and legitimacy deficit. The future of the Conference is at stake.

I spoke out on this issue in the Conference in February when I presented a number of concrete proposals. I believe that in addition to increased political engagement to advance the substantive agenda, which must be our first priority, concrete steps to improve the functioning of the Conference can also be politically significant as a demonstration of the membership’s collective will to chart a way out of the impasse. In addition, it could help to build trust. Obviously, any substantive work in the CD can only happen if the political environment is favourable. But, lamenting the constraints of the rules of procedure or the “absence of political will” can no longer suffice.
Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that the Conference on Disarmament does continue to work. The process of engagement is valuable in continuing to build confidence and understanding among member countries.

Let me use the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space – PAROS – as an example. PAROS is one of the four core issues on the CD agenda since 1982. Despite the formal absence of a working group on PAROS, every year scheduled debates on this issue take place in plenary or informal meetings in the CD. Such discussions provide an invaluable platform for exchanges of views, although they do not seem to have bridged completely the diverging views among delegations on this issue.

Work on security in outer space also takes place in other contexts, complementary to the work in the CD. Most recently, the General Assembly with its resolution 65/68 entitled “Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities” requested the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts to conduct a study, commencing in 2012, on outer space transparency and confidence-building measures, without prejudice to the substantive discussions on the prevention of an arms race in outer space within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament, and to submit to the Assembly at its sixty-eighth session a report with an annex containing the study.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), with its near universal membership, was designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to further the goal of nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament, and to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We are now in the preparatory phases for the Review Conference of the Treaty in 2015, whose Preparatory Committee held its first session from 30 April to 11 May this year in Vienna. Constructive discussions took place to further the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations for follow-on action agreed at the 2010 Review Conference. The good beginning gives some hope for a strong outcome at the 2015 Review Conference.

An important outcome of the 2010 NPT Review Conference was the agreement to organize a conference on establishing a zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Preparations for this Conference, to be held in Finland later this year, are now underway. While preparations, understandably, have been complex, the holding of the conference will, in and of itself, be a signal of movement.

As I was reading the programme for this course, I was pleased to learn that you will also discuss Chemical and Biological Weapons, Anti-personnel Landmines and Cluster Munitions. While there are well-known differences among the legal regimes that govern them, they all represent a practical application of one of the most important principles of customary law of armed conflict, namely the prohibition of the use of means of warfare causing unnecessary suffering. Fortunately, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention as well as the Ottawa Convention and the Cluster Munitions Convention do not merely prohibit the use of such weapons, but outlaw them entirely.

It is important to recall that the BWC, the CWC as well as the NPT are among the many Conventions to have been negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. They show the potential for real progress on disarmament that is inherent to the Conference but remains untapped at the moment.

We should not only draw inspiration from these earlier results, but also remind ourselves of the processes that led to their adoption; they were all complex and lengthy, reflecting the sensitivity of the subject matter. It would be naïve to expect rapid results, and we need to keep this in mind also when we may feel overwhelmed by frustration at the slow pace currently.

While it is true that we have experienced limited progress on multilateral disarmament on weapons of mass destruction in recent years, we must not lose sight of the important advances that have been achieved in other disarmament areas.

With respect to conventional weapons, the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its five Protocols form the cornerstone of international efforts to protect civilians from conventional weapons. The Convention’s membership comprise all the world’s major military powers and focuses on conventional weapons that have indiscriminate effects or cause excessively severe injuries. The CCW is a dynamic instrument, which can respond to the advances in weapons technology and to the developments in the conduct of armed conflicts.

The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities and impacts on the security and development of many regions of the world. Most present-day conflicts are fought mainly with small arms, which are broadly used in inter-State conflict. They are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare. The Small Arms Survey, based here in Geneva, estimates that there are 875 million small arms in circulation worldwide, produced by more than 1,000 companies from nearly 100 countries, with the annual authorized trade alone exceeding 6 billion dollars.

Preparations are now ongoing for the Review Conference of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, which will take place in New York from 27 August to 7 September this year. The President-designate of the Conference, Ambassador Ogwu of Nigeria, is currently conducting consultations, and I hope that Member States will take this opportunity to make further progress in curbing the proliferation and impact of small arms and light weapons.

Later this month, United Nations Member States will convene in New York to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty, a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms. While many points still need to be negotiated and there is no universal consensus, the treaty is seen by some as the most important initiative ever within the United Nations regarding conventional arms regulation.

Last, but certainly not least, I was pleased to notice that one session will be devoted to gender issues in disarmament. The gender dimension of disarmament, particularly with reference to activity in the field and the security sector, has sometimes been overlooked. I am glad that in the past few years a new sensitivity has developed and gender issues have – slowly – made their way into disarmament. I consider this an area which we need to develop further and make a priority in our work, as we strive more generally to empower women, which is one of the priorities of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Dear Colleagues:
When disarmament experts get together, there is always a risk of getting lost in technical details and discussions of processes and procedures. I believe that it is important, once in a while, to step back from the technicalities and remind ourselves of what is really at stake here: the future of our world. Disarmament and non-proliferation are, quite simply, the cornerstones of a safer and more secure future for all of us.

Disarmament is also linked to broader efforts for development and progress. Over the past decade, the world has witnessed a consistent growth of military expenditure. Figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute show that global military spending has topped 1.7 trillion dollars. The growth in States’ military expenditure is a cause for well-grounded concern and requires debate. In a context of economic crisis and financial constraints, we need to ask ourselves whether this is truly a sustainable choice. Is this really the best use of our resources as we strive to build a better world?

The responsibility that comes with working on disarmament is indeed great. And our level of ambition should match this. I hope you use this course not only to learn the technicalities of disarmament, but to be inspired about the potential for a better world that it brings so that you keep your level of ambition high in order to move forward.

Thank you very much for your attention.