|
1 April 2004 |
|
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004_4_1.html |
|
UNITED NATIONS - Nongovernmental experts on arms control and international law yesterday criticized a draft resolution before the Security Council designed to deny terrorists and other "nonstate actors" access to weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, March 25). John Burroughs of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy said that while "there is clearly an urgent need to prevent nuclear proliferation involving nonstate actors," this resolution is the wrong vehicle. The NGOs' made two major criticisms: the draft ignores the role of disarmament in promoting nonproliferation and it would turn the Security Council into a kind of global legislature. The text "refers only to the prevention of proliferation, and is silent, rhetorically or substantively, on the imperative of disarmament," said Burroughs. "It's absolutely hypocritical because there's nothing in it about the disarmament obligations of the five nuclear states under the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty]" (see GSN, March 30). Those five states - the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and China - are also the five permanent members of the council. Susi Snyder, director of the U.N. office of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, said, "It is safe to say that the world would be much more receptive to collective action on preventing proliferation involving nonstate actors if there was progress instead of backsliding on the arms control/disarmament front." The draft, if approved, would require states to "adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws" to deny nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, their components and "means of delivery" (such as missiles and drones) to any "nonstate actors." The text invokes Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, meaning the requirements of the resolution would be legally binding. The United States and United Kingdom had been negotiating with the other permanent members of the council since December. The text distributed to the 10 elected members last week was approved by all five permanent members. In releasing the draft, British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said the draft "fills a gap in the nonproliferation regimes" because governments are subject to international controls, but "what there aren't are obligations targeted at the terrorists." He added, "What we have to do is stop the ultimate nightmare: the bringing together of weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist." Burroughs said the draft "imposes no obligations on the P5" - the permanent five council members - because those five also have veto power over any council action, but "it certainly affects countries outside the NPT because it's going to place obligations, for example, on Pakistan to ensure that nuclear materials do not find their way via nonstate actor networks to other countries." In February it was revealed that the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The NGOs also called for a public meeting of the council before any action is taken. "A resolution of this magnitude, which does not involve all nations during the deliberations, will only inspire distrust and resentment," Snyder said. Snyder said she and Burroughs had met so far with four of the elected members of the council. "In general, they have been supportive of the idea of an open debate, especially in noting that because this resolution affects so many that by passing it without an open debate it would not allow for their voices to be heard," she added. Snyder said the delegates they talked to were "concerned with the lack of transparency over the initial negotiations on this resolution and have been concerned with the definitions - or lack of definitions - and some of the terms." Burroughs said that at first, he "was more sympathetic to the idea of a Security Council mandatory resolutions, but as I studied the issue, I began to see what the consequences would be for international law if suddenly the Security Council becomes an ongoing global legislature." The precedent for the council imposing mandatory obligations on countries without any treaty negotiations is Resolution 1373, the counterterrorism resolution adopted in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sep. 11, 2001. The resolution requires states to enact national legislation that would make it harder for terrorists to operate or hide resources in all countries (see GSN, March 29). Like Resolution 1373, Burroughs said this draft "would represent a far-reaching assumption of authority by the Security Council to enact global legislation requiring each state to modify its national legal system and policies." He added, "There is nothing in the U.N. Charter that confers such authority on the Security Council. Rather the Charter contemplates multilateral agreements entered into by states as the primary mode of global lawmaking." The authors of the draft were aware of this concern when they publicized the draft last week. Jones Parry said the draft "does not represent the Security Council trying to impose its will to replace the role of properly negotiated multilateral regimes, it is a responsible reaction by the Security Council to a real threat." The NGOs proposed instead that any resolution on the subject not be mandatory requirements but rather "guidelines and requests" for states to address the problem. In addition, implementation should be in the hands of the secretary general, not the president of the council. This way it "would remove the basis for any claim of 'enforcement,'" said Burroughs, and "would be an excellent opportunity to involve the concerned international bodies in this matter" if the work was done by the secretary general rather than the council. German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, who assumes the rotating presidency of the Pleuger said Germany supports the draft "because there is a gap in international law pertaining to nonstate actors. We cannot wait for normal procedure of international law of negotiating a convention or a treaty. We have to act, the urgency is there, so the resolution in principle is a good move." On the other hand, he said, "There is certainly room for improvement." Germany has proposals "that relate the resolution to disarmament and disarmament obligations that are already existing under international law because there is a connection, of course. Weapons that are disarmed cannot be proliferated, it's as easy as that."
|
|
Nations, NGOs Resist US-UK Arms Resolution |
|
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 31 (IPS) - The United States and Britain are facing strong resistance over their attempt to hastily rush through the Security Council a
proposed resolution aimed at preventing terrorists and other ''non-state actors'' from trafficking in and acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The opposition comes not only from most of the 10 elected, non-permanent members of the council but also from an international coalition of over 2,000 peace activists, anti-war groups and members of civil society representing 85 countries. ''The entire resolution was drafted and discussed behind closed doors by the five veto-wielding permanent members (the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China) with hardly any inputs from us,'' a Third World diplomat representing one of the council's elected members, told IPS on Wednesday. The five permanent members of the council are also the world's only declared nuclear states. The diplomat, who refused to be identified, said most of the elected members do not want to be rushed into taking a decision. ''We are told it took five months for the Big Five to finalise the draft. Perhaps it could take another five months for us to study and decide on it. We are in no hurry,'' he added, conveying virtually the collective voice of the 10 elected members. The 10 are Angola, Chile, Germany, Pakistan, Spain, Algeria, Benin, Brazil, the Philippines and Romania. Ambassador Abdullah Baali of Algeria said last week, ''non-proliferation is better dealt with through treaty negotiations, not Security Council mandates. It would be a mistake to do it through the Security Council.'' But he said his government would support the draft, with reservations. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte has insisted the proposed resolution would not ''supersede, undercut or undermine existing disarmament and non-proliferation regimes''. The United States has said it would like to see the resolution adopted as soon as possible, maybe within weeks. Washington had suggested a deadline of Mar. 31-- seven days after the five-page resolution was formally presented to the Security Council. Both Russia and China have also expressed reservations over the proposal's language, but have not said they will oppose the resolution. ''There are many council members who are concerned with the resolution and concerned with the lack of transparency on the initial negotiations,'' Susi Snyder of the U.N. Office of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, told reporters Wednesday. John Burroughs, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, thinks a decision on the draft resolution will be delayed because of strong resistance from council members, none of who want to be publicly identified. Burroughs told IPS there is a ''lot of dissatisfaction'' among the 10 elected council members over the plan. Still, he added, the United States and Britain might not find it difficult to get the nine votes needed to adopt the proposal. ''I think they would prefer to have consensus among all 15 members on such an important resolution,'' added Burroughs, who is also a member of the Global Council of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. In a letter to the 15 members of the Security Council, Abolition 2000 says, ''while the proposed resolution affirms support for multilateral treaties on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, it refers only to prevention of proliferation, and is silent, rhetorically and substantively, on ending deployment of existing weapons and on the imperative of disarmament.'' The resolution is flawed, it says, because it fails to acknowledge the disarmament obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to identify measures to reduce and eliminate nuclear arsenals. ''Proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and their potential acquisition by terrorists, will never be effectively addressed so long as nuclear weapons are highly valued by major powers,'' the letter said. If the resolution is adopted, the coalition added, it would also represent a far-reaching assumption of authority by the Security Council to enact global legislation requiring each state to modify its national legal system and policies. The coalition includes the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the Global Resource Action Centre for the Environment, Atomic Mirror and the Western States Legal Foundation. Jayantha Dhanapala, a former U.N. under-secretary-general for disarmament affairs, told IPS that the Security Council has not often addressed the subject of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). ''That it should do so now in the limited context of the proliferation of such weapons to non-state actors must be welcomed,'' he added. ''However,'' said Dhanapala, ''the credibility of the proposed resolution would have been greatly enhanced if the logical connection between non-discriminatory non-proliferation and verifiable disarmament was acknowledged.'' ''All WMD treaties have a disarmament core and honouring these treaty obligations leads to a WMD-free global society. There are no safe hands for highly dangerous weapons and any possession of WMD will lead inevitably to proliferation,'' he warned. Burroughs is urging the Security Council to hold comprehensive consultations with all interested states and civil society. ''The resolution must not be fast-tracked; the issues are too complex and important,'' he said. Last month Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan admitted he was responsible for transferring nuclear technology to several countries, including Libya. ''The proposed resolution seems to have been directed at countries like Pakistan,'' Jim Paul of the Global Policy Forum told IPS. ''Pakistan has been very vocal on the subject,'' he said, and has complained about the lack of transparency in negotiating the resolution. ''This is a classic case of the five permanent (council) members working in secrecy. This process has been going on for years. If they can get away with it, they'd happily do so'', he said. These five countries must be slowed down, Paul added, pointing out that the elected council members have the capacity to withhold their votes. ''But it all depends on how much leverage they have in being able to resist.'' Paul also characterised the proposed resolution as an attempt to supersede international law created by treaties. ''If the Security Council is given the power to do this, it short-circuits the treaty process,'' he said. The council, he pointed out, is much less representative of the international community -- and the permanent five are even less representative, Paul added. The following resolution is on the notice paper of the Australian senate (a) on 24 March 2004, the United States of America presented a draft resolution on non-proliferation to the United Nations (UN) Security Council, which required all states to enact criminal and other laws and measures to prevent terrorists and other non-state actors trafficking in and acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, related materials, and missiles and other unmanned systems of delivery; (b) some states and non-government organisations (NGOs) are concerned that the approaches proposed in the draft resolution are discriminatory and inflammatory, and will exacerbate proliferation and security issues rather than alleviate them; and (c) Abolition 2000, a global network of over 2000 NGOs working for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, wrote to all UN members stating that the draft resolution: (i) refers only to the prevention of proliferation and is silent, rhetorically or substantively, on ending the deployment of existing weapons and on the obligations for disarmament, (ii) requires all states to adopt national implementation measures, thus assuming a role for the Security Council of a global legislative body, something normally achieved through treaty negotiations requiring consensus by states, and (iii) is being presented as a Chapter VII resolution to the Charter of the United Nations, which could open the door for the unilateral use of force by certain states to enforce the resolution in specific situations without having to return to the Security Council for any additional authorisation.
|
|
|
