Canada & the UN > Newton Bowles Reports

« Return to Table of Contents

Disarmament

If I cast my eyes only on this G.A. and its First Committee (which does "Disarmament") I could say nothing much happened, and walk away. But the fact that the Committee met and talked is itself a happening: Better jaw jaw jaw than war war war, said Winnie Churchill.

Having set aside the notion of comprehensive disarmament, we have fallen into a segmented approach-- mass weapons, conventionals. So far mass destruction is nuclear, chemical or biological. (Why do I say or?) Conventional destruction comes in three boxes: heavy conventionals, excessively inhumane weapons, and small arms (light arms). On the face of it, this looks like an engineering approach to highly political problems. Technical discussions go nowhere unless they have a political impetus and objective.

Our political craftsmen are not always out to lunch. For mass weapons, the Convention on the Control of Biologicals took effect (became legally binding) in 1975 (now ratified* by 172 countries); and the Chemical Weapons Convention took effect in 1997 (106 ratified, including Russia and U.S.A.). No multilateral treaty (convention) exists for the control or elimination of nuclear weapons. The NPT-Non Proliferation Treaty (in effect since 1970, renewed in 1995) commits States that don't have nukes not to make them, and commits the nuclear powers to get rid of them "at an early date." (The Lawyers Committees on Nuclear Policy got experts to draft a model or prototype convention to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons. Costa Rica circulated this at the General Assembly in November 1997.) There is also the CTBT-- Comprehensive Test Ban treaty-- adopted by the General Assembly in 1997, by which all declared nuclear states have agreed to stop all nuclear explosions. The run-down of nuclear arsenals is being negotiated bilaterally: Russia-USA, START I, START II with a look ahead to START III.

For conventional weapons, no comprehensive treaty is in place or even in negotiation. (There is more than one prototype treaty, drafted by western peace professionals.) Since 1992 there is the UN Register of Conventional Arms which assembles government reports of imports/exports of heavy conventionals, the things one country would use to attack another. The Convention on Inhumane Weapons covers booby traps, anti-personnel land-mines, incendiaries and lasers; it took effect in 1983, revised 1996, with 71 countries ratifying. (This Convention sets conditions for the use of land-mines, intended to assure that they are used only for traditional military purposes and to minimize civilian casualties.) The comprehensive Treaty to abolish land-mines (production, stocks, exports, use) concluded in Ottawa December 1997 has been signed by 123 governments and will take effect when ratified by 40 (probably by mid-year 1998).

Two major issues confront the G.A. (First Committee): nuclear weapons and conventionals. The G.A. is in perennial frustration over nukes because the USA and Russia are obdurate about keeping negotiations in their own hands. Despite their commitment in the NPT (to eliminate nukes "by an early date") they reject multilateral prompting for them to move along step-by-state in some sort of time table (proposed by the G.A. in 1996), despite the 1996 opinion of the World Court that they (and all States), are under treaty obligation "to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." What could the G.A. do at this session but reiterate its 1996 resolution; and once again ask the Conference on Disarmament to get on with negotiating a treaty to prohibit any use of nukes. Not only the G.A. but also the Geneva CD-Conference on Disarmament (the standing intergovernment body that fashions treaties) have been frozen out of nuclear disarmament. The CD consensus rule kept elimination of nukes off their agenda last year. In the G.A.'s First Committee last October, Canada came forward with the suggestion that nuke negotiations would be enlivened and accelerated by including other nuke States in the START process; and that the ongoing reviews of NPT as well as the Geneva CD should get serious about nuclear disarmament. To an outsider, that isn't such a wild idea; but given current nuclear politics, it took some courage.

Our good Ambassador followed through with this suggestion at the current CD; and South Africa picked it up with a proposal that at least an Ad Hoc committee should be established to look at these issues. By formal treaty, Nuclear Weapons Free Zones have now been established in Latin America, Africa and the South Pacific; and consultations are in the works to extend them to South and Central Asia. The Middle East awaits peace with Israel.

As for conventional arms, a 1997 review of the UN Register by an intergovernmental group produced no important change. Local (national) production and "holdings" are still excluded. Last year 85 governments reported. The U.S. is lifting its self-imposed ban on exports to Latin America; and expanding NATO will open new markets. "Excess capacity" (excess kill power) fires up market competition-- arms trade over $30 billion a year. I read that the busted Asian bubble-- deflated Tigers-- may check their arms appetite.

The intergovernmental panel on small arms, mandated by the G.A. in 1996, has produced a serious and practical study with good recommendations for action. The G.A. approved all these recommendations. This Panel also endorsed the recommendations of the UN Expert Group on Firearms Regulation for the purpose of crime prevention and public health and safety. The small arms study/report (document A/52/298) derives its strength from the quality of the panelists (a Canadian among them) and from their on-the-spot explorations in Southern Africa, in Central America and in South Asia. They address reduction and prevention. On reduction, looking at arms left over from conflict, they focus on collecting and destroying them. Help internal security and border control of illicit traffic, they say, with special attention to Mali and its West African neighbours where UN has already been assisting. On prevention, governments (States) should tighten up internal and external controls of small arms, especially surplus stocks, following guidelines drafted by the UN Disarmament Commission in 1996; and should safeguard against arms getting away through theft or corruption. Interpol and the World Customs Organization should help national authorities track down criminal arms dealers. The UN should make a study of ammunition and explosives; and should think about convening a conference on the black-market arms trade. A solid platform-- or springboard-- for doing something serious about this complicated and bloody weaponry.

Common sense tells us that you can't tackle disarmament, especially small arms, apart from the social and economic environment. The small arms Panel touches on this when it says that "the United Nations should adopt a proportional and integrated approach to security and development

. . ." The G.A. adopted a complementary resolution on "consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures" which reiterated support for the Disarmament Commission guidelines and suggested that interested States should establish a group to support practical disarmament in the peace-building process. For now, there is little prospect for another Special Session on Disarmament any time soon.

Now, where does the Secretary-General stand on disarmament? That it is very high on his agenda is clear from his Reform action, elevating Disarmament to a Department. Its Director (Under Secretary) J.C.B. Dhanapala is superbly qualified for the job, his extensive international experience most recently comprising leadership of the 1995 NPT Extension Conference. Kofi Annan has a personal interest in small arms control and wants to involve "civil society", NGO's, without whose active participation there is little hope of success. This in no way diminishes the nuclear threat as thousands of bombs with delivery systems are still only minutes away from blowing us all off the map. We have to work on the ground and in the sky.