Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Nations Disagree on Scope of Small Arms Conference - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum Nations Disagree on Scope of Small Arms Conference
By Jim Wurst
Inter Press Service
March 6, 2000
The first planning session for a U.N. conference on how to control the proliferation of small arms has ended with delegates failing to agree on anything other than the dates of the next meeting. Disagreements cover virtually every issue -- from the role of the legal arms market in feeding the black market, to what role, if any, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should be allowed to play in the conference.
The week-long meeting that concluded this weekend was the first of three sessions mandated by the U.N. General Assembly to plan a conference in 2001 on "the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects." Those last four words are used by advocates of the broad approach to argue that since most illegal arms started began as legal products, the two issues cannot be separated.
A small but important minority wants to keep the conference focused solely on the illicit trade. "The scope of the conference should be confined to the question of illicit trade," asserted Ambassador Shen Guofang of China. "The question of legal trade in small arms and light weapons should not become the subject matter for consideration."
Most of those advocating a broad scope argue that the issues must be looked at in the whole context of human rights and social and economic development. "The scope should not be limited to a focus on illicit trade only but should also focus on the legal trade in arms," says Jean Du Preez of South Africa. "Only through increased transparency and better control of the legal arms trade would the international community be able to constrain illicit arms trade."
Mozambique's Ambassador Carlos Dos Santos, who is chairing these sessions, characterized last week's meeting as "the differences of opinions one would (expect) with an issue like the illicit trade of small arms. People look at it from different angles and those differences came to the fore." He said countries have concerns about interference with national sovereignty and territorial integrity. "You get frustrated when you think everything should be clear," he added.
In the end, the only agreement coming out of the first planning session was to hold the second session in New York from Jan. 8 to 19, 2001 and the third session in March at an unspecified location. The dates could be anywhere between June and August 2001. Dos Santos also has the mandate to conduct informal meetings this year to try to advance the work.
The meeting began on a more optimistic note. Most of the opening speeches emphasized common ground, such as the need for a coordinated plan of action to combat the effects of the widespread distribution and use of small arms.
The coordinated plan would include, according to some speakers, stronger measures to eradicate the illicit trade, improved regional cooperation, the collection and destruction of surplus weapons after a conflict, a universal marking of weapons to make tracing them easier, and greater cooperation among national law enforcement and customs officers.
But once the closed doors sessions began, the fundamental differences took center stage. The deadlock continued through the two-and-a-half days of closed deliberations. According to delegates, the most vocal proponents of the narrow scope were Algeria, China, Cuba, Egypt, Russia and Syria.
Another contentious issue was the role non-governmental organizations would be allowed to play in the conference. Hoping to build on the greater participation of NGOs in negotiations over the treaty banning landmines and on the creation of an International Criminal Court, NGOs and some governments favored a similarly active role for these groups. In public sessions, all nations were in favor of the involvement of civil society. But once the meeting went into closed sessions, proposals circulated that would not only limit NGO access but also restrict what kind of NGOs could participate.
One proposal would require all NGOs to submit credentials specifically for this conference (normally a U.N. conference accepts all NGOs already approved by the U.N.), and to demonstrate their disarmament expertise. Several delegations saw this as a manoeuvre not only to limit NGO assess, but also to ensure human rights NGOs would be barred. It is unclear how that could work since many NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch and most faith-based groups, have expertise in both arms control and human rights.
The divisions even spilled over into areas as routine as working papers submitted by delegations. Four papers on the scope of the conference -- by Canada, the European Union, France and Switzerland, and South Africa -- were circulated. Usually such papers are listed in the meeting's final report, but China and Russia objected to mention of the papers. The authors of the reports wanted them included. As a result, the final report will mention that papers were submitted, but will not include them -- leaving it up to anyone wanting to read the reports to find them for themselves. All four papers favored a broad scope.
More Articles and Analysis on Small Arms and Light Weapons
Other Information on Small Arms and Light Weapons
More Information on NGO Access
