Can the UN direct disarmament?

By Imron Cotan and Iwan Wiranataatmadja

This is the first of two articles on the efforts of the UN to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.

JAKARTA (JP): Due to their devastating impacts on human beings and the environment, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have since their invention preoccupied the international community. All nations unanimously label these abhorrent weapons as weapons of mass destruction and furthermore have agreed to work for their eventual elimination.

The international outcry to ban these weapons once again gained strong impetus after chemical weapons were used during the Gulf War, prompting the government of France to take the courageous initiative of organizing the Paris Conference on Chemical Weapons (1991).

The result was indeed very encouraging. The United Nations- sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva gained a much stronger momentum from it, hence finally concluding the then seemingly endless round of negotiations on the convention.

Ever since, the international community's preoccupation with these inhumane weapons, if not steadily escalated, has never receded, especially after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The UN Security Council has accordingly passed a series of resolutions demanding Iraq abandon its weapons of mass-destruction options. The squabbles over the proper implementation of these resolutions have continued unabated.

Indeed, through the Conference on Disarmament, the United Nations did and continues to play a pivotal role in trying to conclude a series of legal regimes banning totally these abhorrent weapons from the world's arsenals. Putting aside the loopholes and weaknesses contained therein, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention were successfully concluded in 1972 and 1993 respectively.

Unfortunately indeed, the international community's efforts to conclude a series of legal regimes regulating nuclear weapons have encountered formidable hurdles. The Conference on Disarmament -- as the sole recognized multilateral negotiating forum -- has so far failed to address these weapons. It is therefore legitimate to question whether this august body is still best suited to deal with the global disarmament agenda, taking into account the new realities and formidable challenges brought by the tumultuous and yet unpredictable post-Cold War era.

The multilateral disarmament negotiations are not novel and the United Nations has played and continues to play a significant role in this regard. When the UN Disarmament Commission became a deliberative forum of the UN General Assembly, the international community managed to form several multilateral negotiating forums within the ambit of the UN system to deal with the global disarmament agenda.

These include the 10-Nation Committee on Disarmament, the 18- Nation Committee on Disarmament and the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament which -- at the later stage -- was transformed into the Conference on Disarmament.

Surprisingly indeed, during the Cold War era these forums significantly contributed to the curtailment of these weapons of mass destruction by successfully concluding some major disarmament agreements covering the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (PTBT, 1963), the Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970) and the Biological Weapons Convention (1972).

When the new era was ushered in, the Conference on Disarmament went through its most productive and successful epoch when it managed to conclude -- albeit painstakingly -- the most comprehensive convention totally outlawing chemical weapons (1993).

However, just when the new pattern of relationships between and among the major powers was about to take final shape the work of the conference was unfortunately marred by two distressing factors.

The first was the failure of the states party to the Non- Proliferation Treaty to achieve a final consensus document during the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The second was the inability of the conference to fully discharge its mandate to conclude the negotiations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty due to the unreconcilable views of the non-nuclear weapons states and the nuclear weapons states on how to achieve general and complete nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control.

These two indeed discouraging developments have ever since significantly overshadowed the negotiations on these weapons.

The writers are former United Nations Disarmament Fellows and observers of international peace and security affairs, residing in Jakarta.