U.N. Security Council Approves WMD Resolution

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council yesterday unanimously approved a resolution designed to close a loophole in international law by requiring states to ensure terrorists and other nonstate actors are denied access to weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 23).

From comments made by the delegates after the vote, it was clear there were still concerns about the implications of the measure they had just approved, especially worries that the resolution would be applied unevenly among states and that the council was creating arms control law that should be properly done through treaty negotiations.

Council members agreed with the premise of the text, that more needs to be done to prevent terrorists and other nonstate actors from acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, because it is an obvious security concern and existing treaties deal only with relationship among states. However, there were concerns about whether this resolution was the best way to accomplish that.

Resolution 1540 requires states to “adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws” to deny weapons of mass destruction, their components and “means of delivery” (such as missiles and drones) to any “nonstate actors.”

The United States proposed the resolution. U.S. Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham said, “In this resolution the council is responding appropriately to what all agree is a clear and present threat to global peace and security: the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, especially to nonstate actors, including terrorists.”

The draft was presented to the council in March on behalf of all five permanent members of the council, and was then altered to address some of the concerns of the elected members. Chief among those concerns were that the text ignored the importance of disarmament, that the council was acting as a global legislature and that the enforcement provisions of the resolution would be unevenly applied.

German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger voted for the text but with the “regret that no explicit language” was included to deal with disarmament issues, including verification and security assurances for non-nuclear states. Changes in the text make it clear that “the resolution does not foresee any unilateral enforcement measures. If necessary, such measures must be” imposed by the council “as a whole.”

Brazilian Ambassador Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg said that while dealing with an urgent threat, it was also important to “safeguard the legitimacy of existing nonproliferation treaties.” He said limiting the resolution to the question of nonproliferation as “the overriding threat was inadequate.” At the same time, disarmament must be pursued in good faith, he added.

To address the concern that the emphasis was on nonproliferation at the expense of disarmament, the revisions make more references to the need for disarmament and say the resolution cannot “be interpreted so as to conflict with or alter” obligations in disarmament treaties. “The resolution clearly states that it will not alter or amend the existing nonproliferation treaty regimes,” said Cunningham.

Another issue was concern that the council was attempting to act as a global legislature, writing law that should be left to universal bodies such as the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. The council “cannot assume the stewardship of global nonproliferation and disarmament issues,” said Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram. The fear was that the council was assuming powers not given to it by the U.N. Charter and that council enforcement would be discriminatory —because the five permanent members of the council are also nuclear weapon states, they would never be subjected to any council action since they could veto any resolution concerning them.

Akram said the final text makes clear that the council is not attempting to legislate for the entire U.N. membership and it does not “seek to prescribe specific legislation, which is left to national action by states.”

In addition, the text more clearly defines that the resolution deals only with nonstate actors and has “no intention to oblige states to join treaties.” These points are particularly sensitive to Pakistan since it is a nuclear-armed state but not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and it was revealed earlier this year that the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was involved with an illicit network supplying nuclear technology to other governments.

Another change was extending the life of the committee that will monitor compliance with the resolution from six months to two years. States were concerned that six months was not enough time for states to comply with demands to enact national legislation on multiple fronts to combat proliferation. British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said the obligations in the resolution would be “applied without favor” to all states. In addition, he said the new committee should serve as “the heart of a collaborative and cooperative approach” to nonproliferation.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.