|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
First Committee: Committee Debates the Future of Multilateralism By Jim Wurst The stronger the language on multilateralism in general — or on specific proposals for disarmament — the less likely a resolution was to achieve consensus or even major support. In some cases, the United States or other Western nuclear powers opposed drafts that endorsed policies they do not want to pursue; at other times, India or Pakistan objected to favorable references to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty , to which neither is a party. When enough of these elements were in any resolution, the negative votes and abstentions could be significant. The committee spent seven days debating and voting on more than 50 resolutions on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons disarmament, small arms, the Register of Conventional Weapons, missiles and the work of the Conference on Disarmament. As usual, nuclear disarmament dominated the debate. The New Agenda Coalition, a grouping of seven countries — Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, Sweden, New Zealand and South Africa — that since 1997 has been promoting multilateral disarmament measures aiming for a nuclear weapon-free world, wrote a resolution that expressed concern over a lack of progress on disarmament since the 2000 NPT Review Conference and over “emerging approaches to the broader role of nuclear weapons as part of security strategies” that “could lead to the development of new types, and rationalizations for the use, of nuclear weapons.” The coalition said “a nuclear weapon-free world will ultimately require the underpinning of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument or a framework encompassing a mutually reinforcing set of instruments.” The vote was 118-7 — France, India, Israel, Monaco, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the United States were opposed — with 38 abstentions. China voted for the resolution, and Russia and most NATO states and U.S. allies abstained. A Japanese-Australian draft on nuclear disarmament was opposed by the NAC countries and others that felt the resolution misrepresented and watered down commitments the nuclear states made at the 2000 NPT review conference. The United States opposed it because of a favorable reference to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and India followed suit because of references to the NPT. The vote was 136-2 with 13 abstentions. The only resolution on nuclear disarmament to be adopted by consensus was one sponsored by the United States and Russia welcoming their bilateral nuclear agreement, the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty. Even here, though, some countries that joined the consensus expressed serious reservations about the resolution. The NAC welcomed the treaty but added, “Reductions in deployment and operational status cannot substitute for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons.” The traditional nonaligned movement draft on nuclear disarmament was adopted by a vote of 91-49 with 19 abstentions. Although it did not include some language that the Western nuclear powers and their allies have found objectionable in the past, it still featured a call for more action that the West appeared ready to accept, such as pledging not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, dealerting nuclear weapons, minimizing the role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrine and negotiating further cuts in tactical nuclear weapons. This issue of tactical, or “substrategic,” arms was the subject of an NAC resolution calling on the United States and Russia “to formalize their presidential nuclear initiatives [of 1991 and 1992] into legal instruments and to initiate negotiations on further effectively verifiable reductions of their nonstrategic nuclear weapons.” The vote was 115-3 with 38 abstentions. The United States, the United Kingdom and France voted against the text, saying that “the approach it outlines to dealing with nonstrategic nuclear weapons is unrealistic and impractical, and would have virtually no prospect of success.” Russia abstained. Similarly, a resolution on missiles, written by Iran, passed 90-2, with the United States and Israel opposed and 57 abstentions. The draft welcomed a recent U.N. study on missiles and called for more study on ways to control the proliferation of these weapons. The European Union and other European states abstained, saying they favored the voluntary International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation as “the most concrete initiative” and the one that “offers the best chances of leading to tangible results.” There were two drafts dealing with multilateralism in general. One by the nonaligned movement drew 11 negative votes and 44 abstentions, with 100 positive votes. The other, by committee Chairman Matia Mulumba Semakul Kiwanuka, went through three revisions after being criticized for placing multilateral efforts above other negotiating forms and for an alleged lack of transparency in the writing of the text. Kiwanuka withdrew the draft when it became clear consensus would not be found. The nonaligned draft “reaffirms multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and nonproliferation,” “underlines the importance of preserving the existing agreements on arms regulation and disarmament, which constitute an expression of the results of the international cooperation” and asks countries to “consult and cooperate among themselves in resolving their concerns with regard to cases of noncompliance as well as on their implementation ... and refrain from resorting or threatening to resort to unilateral actions or directing unverified noncompliance accusations against one another.” The draft was an indirect criticism of the United States over its plans for a possible attack against Iraq and noncompliance with its disarmament obligations. A U.S. draft on compliance with arms control agreements was adopted by consensus. Indirectly targeting Iraq and North Korea, the text called on states “to give serious consideration to the implications that noncompliance by states parties with any provisions of agreements in the fields of arms limitation and disarmament and nonproliferation have for international security and stability” and “to support efforts aimed at the resolution of compliance questions by means consistent with such agreements and international law, with a view to encouraging strict observance by all states parties of the provisions of arms limitation and disarmament and nonproliferation agreements and maintaining or restoring the integrity of such agreements.” Although they joined the consensus, countries including Brazil, Egypt and New Zealand complained the text weakened commitments to multilateral disarmament because of language that had been left out from previous years. A draft on preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, sponsored by India, also achieved consensus. The draft “urges all member states to undertake and strengthen national measures, as appropriate, to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and materials and technologies related to their manufacture, and invites them to inform the secretary general, on a voluntary basis, of the measures taken in this regard.” An Iraqi text on depleted uranium was the only draft before the committee that was defeated. The vote was 35-59 with 56 abstentions. Opponents, including the United States and the European Union, said the draft stated as facts the health and environmental damage caused by these weapons, which were used by the United States in Iraq and Yugoslavia, but that the evidence shows the use of these weapons to imply no such effects. For further information, see: States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)
| ||||||||||
Back to top
