Can the UN direct disarmament?

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.