http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0608/S00048.htm
 
Goff Speech - Wgtn. UN Association on disarmament
Thursday, 3 August 2006, 8:43 am
Speech: New Zealand Government 
Speech to Wellington branch of the UN Association on disarmament
Disarmament Minister Phil Goff's address to the Wellington branch of the New Zealand United Nation Association on disarmament, focusing on the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission Report, and the UN Small Arms and Light Weapons Review Conference.

* * * * *

Thank you for your invitation to address the New Zealand United Nation Association tonight on disarmament. I want tonight to focus on two main issues, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission Report, and the Small Arms and Light Weapons Review Conference.....(Portions deleted.)

A major event on this year's disarmament calendar was the first Review Conference on the Programme of Action (PoA) to combat the Illicit Trade on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW). This took place at UN Headquarters in New York from 26 June to 7 July.

The PoA was adopted by consensus at a conference on 2001. It sets out a wide range of measures at national, regional and global levels to tackle the growing problems caused by illicit firearms. It does not have the force of a legally binding treaty, but nevertheless serves as a strong political statement of the international community's recognition of the small arms problem, and its determination to do something about it.

As many as 1,000 people die every day from gunshot wounds. The toll on families, communities and indeed economies is enormous. Kofi Annan has called SALW "weapons of mass destruction in slow motion": they kill more people every year than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki together.

The global trade in small arms is estimated to be worth about US$4 billion, of which a quarter is considered illicit or is not recorded as required by law. Even these figures are approximate, since many countries do not provide full information on their arms trade.

New Zealand went to the Conference hoping that it would agree on a strategy to move ahead on implementation of the Programme. New Zealand is a country that already broadly complies with the Programme. We have also worked to promote adherence to its neighbouring Pacific Island states.

We knew that a conference on this scale required a focused approach. We had been involved in preparatory discussions at the UN on the draft outcome document. It was a large document with several potentially difficult provisions for some states. Most states had, however, generally welcomed the draft as a good starting point.

New Zealand's priorities were first, to build support for transfer controls on SALW trade. We had already been active in support of the Transfer Control Initiative, launched by the UK. In April we had taken part in a small drafting group that met in Nairobi to develop the text of some global guidelines for transfer controls at the national level. These would link exports of SALW to certain criteria, such as the recipient country's international law record, current conflict situations, or human rights issues.

Secondly we sought to build support for the concept of an Arms Trade Treaty. This is a more ambitious goal than the TCI because it involves a legally binding treaty and would cover all conventional weapons, not just small arms and light weapons. Again, an important goal would be to prevent weapons going to states that should not possess them. The UK, which has the lead role on an ATT, had acknowledged that the RevCon would not be the venue for any final decision on the initiative.

Thirdly we set out to ensure that the outcome took account of small arms concerns in the Pacific. New Zealand together with Australia has worked on a number of initiatives to support the implementation of the PoA in the Pacific. Research shows that gun-related problems in the region stem mainly from "leakage" of weapons from licit sources (rather than from illicit trade across borders), so we have assisted with weapons destruction, armoury security, training in firearms safety etc. The Forum Regional Security Committee, meeting a week before the RevCon, endorsed a set of recommendations to the New York meeting, which reflected the particular priorities of the region.

The meeting was not well organised. The general debate that should have lasted 2 days took 6. There was no provision for separate drafting committees to get on with work on the outcome document while that went on. When negotiations finally got under way, major difference that had been signalled earlier became more entrenched.

At the end of the 2-week conference, including some protracted negotiating sessions that lasted up to 18 hours, many paragraphs in the draft document remained in dispute. When time ran out as UN interpreters downed tools on the evening of Friday 7 July, the formal outcome was a 2-line report informing the General Assembly that the Conference was unable to reach agreement on an outcome document.

This was a bad outcome. The Review Conference was the first opportunity to take stock of what has been achieved since the international community committed itself in 2001 to take action on the growing problems caused globally by small arms and light weapons falling into the wrong hands. Governments and many non-governmental organisations had expected to see that momentum strengthened by this meeting.

No single issue caused the failure. Various countries had various intractable objections to text in the draft document.

India, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Venezuela and Cuba rejected references to the need for global guidelines on transfer controls.

Barbados and other Caribbeans would not have any reference to the impact of SALW on development.

Iran and the US opposed language on weapons supply to non-state actors.

The US refused to agree to any new UN meetings on the PoA, including another Review Conference in 2012.

Other disputed topics were international controls on civilian possession; controls on ammunition, strengthening of end-user certificates, and controls on illegal weapons manufacture.

There were some positives.
Nobody tried to undermine the provisions of the PoA as it stands and there was solid re-commitment to it.

The conference did serve to bring SALW issues back to the attention of the international community. 192 states were represented.

A growing majority of states - at least 115 - spoke out in support of work on global transfer controls. By the end of the Conference the UK had actually succeeded in negotiating a consensus text on that specific issue. Other differences prevented its adoption, but it could provide the foundation for future progress.

Over 40 states also supported the concept of an ATT.

Several Pacific states addressed the meeting and presented a collective statement of the issues of particular concern to the region.

Where to now? Further UN action on SALW will be possible at the UN General Assembly First Committee, where New Zealand usually cosponsors a Japanese resolution. An important issue needing GA approval is follow-up to the Review Conference.

A new Group of Governmental Experts on brokering is due to start work at the UN in November.

At openended working group has been proposed by Canada at the Review Conference, funded by voluntary contributions led by it and Switzerland. If approved by the GA, this is likely to meet next May and would pick up the discussion on transfer controls specifically.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a separate and broader issue. The UK still plans to try for a First Committee resolution this year, providing for the establishment of a Governmental Group of Experts to work on a mandate for drafting an ATT. NZ has clearly registered its interest in an ATT and we will be continuing to promote support for it.

The Review Conference: the Small Arms Conference was a missed opportunity. It might have achieved more had it been better organised; and at the time free of other distractions like DPRK missile testing and the deteriorating situation in the Middle East.

But the PoA remains unchallenged and New Zealand will continue to work for progress in the key areas where we believe it could be strengthened to deliver a more effective regime for the control of illicit SALW trade.

SAWL is an area where collective action offers real prospect of reducing suffering/hardship/wastage. New Zealand remains committed to implementing the PoA as it stands, as well as to the Transfer Control Initiative and the related Arms Trade Treaty.

We also continue to see promise in regional cooperation on the PoA. Dangerous security situations within our own region such as Timor Leste, Solomon Islands and Bougainville could have been much more tragic but for the progress achieved in removing and destroying firearms from their communities.

I would like to finish by again recognising the major part that civil society has played in mobilising the UN to action on the small arms issue. This reflects the anguish that results from the illicit and uncontrolled use of these weapons. The New Zealand delegation to the Review Conference was strengthened by the participation of 3 different NGO representatives. The Government looks forward to continuing this kind of cooperation. We thank UNANZ for the valuable role you play in keeping the positive achievements of the United Nations before us. (Emphasis added.)

ENDS