27 NOVEMBER 1998 • NUMBER 67 • ISSN 0966-9175

• SOUTH ASIAN NUCLEAR TESTS DOMINATE FIRST COMMITTEE DEBATE

• 1998 UN REGISTER

• DOWNLOAD 1998 UN REGISTER TABLES

South Asian Nuclear Tests Dominate First Committee Debate

By Jim Wurst

India and Pakistan's controversial nuclear tests took center stage in this year's UN First Committee session, coloring the entire nuclear disarmament debate. Two draft resolutions on nuclear testing became lightning rods for protests and criticisms on the South Asian tests, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), sub-critical tests and the disarmament versus non-proliferation debate. Additionally, a new resolution on nuclear disarmament exposed a division between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states in NATO. In contrast, on the conventional weapons side of the debate, the draft resolutions offered little in the way of concrete proposals to reflect the growing international interest in light weapons control.

Tasked with disarmament and international security issues, the Committee completed its work on 13 November, approving 49 resolutions and one draft decision. The UN General Assembly (UNGA) will vote on the draft resolutions in late November or early December.

Hot Debate Over Nuclear Testing
According to the Chairman, Ambassador Andre Mernier of Belgium, the Committee's main purpose was "to secure a good future for the CTBT, not to add too much confrontation between the delegates." In an interview at the end of the Committee's session, he told BASIC Reports, "It is impossible to ignore the major event in disarmament this year, the nuclear testing, but at least the damage is limited."

The draft on nuclear testing (L.22) sponsored by Australia, Canada and New Zealand was by far the most controversial of the session, drawing sharp protests from both India and Pakistan. The draft "expresses grave concern over and strongly deplores the recent nuclear tests conducted in South Asia." Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan argued that the nuclear weapon states posed "the greater threat [with] their doctrines that allows them to use these weapons first." Similarly, Ambassador Savitri Kunadi of India remarked that "the double standards are much in evidence."

The seven-paragraph draft provoked seven draft amendments (mostly from India and Pakistan) that were intended to broaden the resolution to deplore all nuclear tests, link the CTBT with nuclear disarmament and criticize "experiments for the qualitative development of nuclear weapons." Ultimately, all of the amendments were either voted down or withdrawn.

Australia, Mexico and New Zealand introduced a draft resolution endorsing the CTBT (L.11) which called for universal ratification and urged "states to maintain their moratoria on nuclear-weapons tests." In response, Pakistan introduced an amendment calling for a halt in "all forms of nuclear testing for qualitative development of nuclear weapons" and India proposed an amendment linking nuclear disarmament to the fulfillment of the CTBT. Rather than engaging in a divisive debate and vote over the CTBT, the sponsors withdrew the draft and substituted a draft decision (L.65) merely calling for inclusion of the CTBT on next year's UNGA agenda.

Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World
The New Agenda Coalition¹ presented the session's most comprehensive proposal, a draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free world (L.48/Rev. 1) based on its June declaration at the Conference on Disarmament (CD). (See BASIC Reports #65 for coverage of the New Agenda Coalition's declaration.)

The resolution outlines a variety of steps toward nuclear elimination, including negotiations on START II, START III, the elimination of non-strategic weapons and a fissile material cut-off treaty. The draft also calls on states to commit to de-alerting, review of strategic doctrines and full-scope safeguards. The draft also addresses universal adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the CTBT. Finally, the resolution calls for the establishment of an "appropriate subsidiary body" on nuclear disarmament within the CD.

Robert Grey, US Ambassador to the CD, sharply criticized the draft resolution, calling the preambular language "alarmist" and the substantive proposals premature. He said de-alerting "would lead to greater instability" and that the co-sponsors ignored progress made in bilateral negotiations. Peter Goosen, South African Deputy Permanent Representative to the CD, responded that it was "the momentum of the resolution" that put draft opponents "on the defensive."

The momentum accelerated after the co-sponsors deleted a reference to "no first use," thereby making it possible for supportive non-nuclear NATO to agree to a draft without contradicting NATO policy. Ultimately, all of the non-nuclear NATO delegations except Turkey abstained in the vote, signaling a shift in their support. The bulk of the opposition votes came from four nuclear weapon states (China abstained), Central and Eastern Europe, India, Pakistan and Israel.

Governments Focus on Black Market Weapons
Two drafts on illicit light weapons trafficking offered little in the way of new proposals and were adopted without a vote. One called on the United Nations and governments to increase cooperative efforts to stem the illicit weapons trade (L.41/Rev. 1) while the other welcomed progress made on collecting and destroying arms in Mali and the Sahara-Sahel region (L.7/Rev. 1). The latter resolution also welcomed new initiatives, such as the West Africa moratorium on the import, export and production of light weapons. By dealing with both legal and
illegal weapons, such a resolution could provide an opportunity to address concerns that some states are pushing for illicit weapons controls as a means of evading responsibility for the uncontrolled flow of weapons in conflict regions.

The black market in weapons was also a key element in the annual resolution on "Small Arms" (L.13/Rev. 1). Endorsing the recommendations of the 1997 Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms and noting a new panel will report to the General Assembly in 1999, the draft's only substantive decision was to convene an international conference on the illicit arms trade no later than 2001. Switzerland offered to host the conference, although privately several African delegates argued that the conference should be held in a region such as Africa which is more powerfully affected by small arms proliferation. The draft also called for a study "on the feasibility of restricting the manufacture and trade of such weapons" to states and authorized dealers.

These resolutions contained only passing references to the various unilateral, regional, international and non-governmental initiatives on light weapons underway around the world. Mernier attributed this disconnect to delegations waiting for the second report of the experts' group. In an interview with BASIC Reports, he expressed the urgent need for "tactical measures on many fronts, especially on the marking of weapons. It's astonishing and outrageous that you can produce weapons without marking them, without being able to track them. That is a feasible and immediate objective. That should be an international obligation."

¹ The New Agenda Coalition is made up of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and South Africa. The group originally included Slovenia, but it dropped out just before the vote on 12 November, reportedly under intense pressure from the three Western nuclear states.

Jim Wurst is a UN-based journalist and consultant on light weapons
disarmament for the Council on Economic Priorities.

1998 UN Register of Conventional Arms

Editor’s notes: The following tables provide data on weapons transfers for calendar year 1997 as reported by the 95 participating states to the sixth annual United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. Where applicable, information from recipients’ import submissions on the number and type of weapons received has also been included for comparative purposes. These details from recipient state import submissions are provided only on those transactions reported by the supplier in its export return; transactions reported by a recipient but not listed in the supplier’s export submission are not included below.

The tables reflect supplier and recipient information posted on the Internet by the United Nations as of 10 November 1998 at http://domino.un.org/REGISTER.NSF

This year’s Register incorporates technical changes recommended by the 1997 UN Group of Governmental Experts to improve reporting and increase transparency. (See BASIC Reports #59 for more details on the group’s final report.) States were asked to specify their definition of a weapons transfer in order to clarify discrepancies between supplier and recipient reports. Countries have differing interpretations of when a transfer takes place: at the time of transfer of control, transfer of title, or otherwise. In addition, for the first time, the United Nations published the voluntary country submissions on military holdings and procurement through national production.

Participation in the Register continues to be somewhat weak. Overall, still only about half of the UN member states participate in the yearly exercise. With the exception of China, all of the top ten weapons suppliers identified by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in its 1998 yearbook filed returns with UN Headquarters. However, among importers, only half of the top ten listed by SIPRI participated in the Register. Saudi Arabia, noted by SIPRI as the leading importer of conventional weapons in 1997, has never participated in the Register.

Only 29 states included information on military holdings in their Register responses; 23 states reported on procurement through national production. The content of these reports ranged widely, from simple totals of holdings and procurement in each of the seven Register categories to detailed breakdown of the military items by type. Most often, states supplied only aggregate totals for each of the Register’s seven categories; few states provided detailed information.

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TABLES

NP: Non-participant. Recipient state did not participate.

No Rpt: Not reported. Recipient state participated in Register but did not report this transfer.

Download 1998 UN Register Tables (PDF format only)

This document is only available in Adobe .pdf format. Click here to download the latest Acrobat reader.

This edition of BASIC Reports was edited by Susannah Dyer in Calgary. 

.
Back to BASIC Publications home page